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

My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. I refer to revelations in the media and testimony to parliamentary committees over recent weeks that NBN Co. CEO, Michael Quigley, has not been completely frank or accurate in statements about his relationship to alleged bribery at Alcatel-Lucent, his former employer, up until 2006. Is the minister aware of any further as yet undisclosed inconsistencies in Mr Quigley statements? Does the minister have full and unqualified confidence in Mr Quigley?

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

The short answer is yes. Senator Birmingham will have every opportunity to continue his smear campaign in about two hours at Senate estimates. If you have got the guts to actually ask Mr Quigley, if you actually have the guts to say it to his face—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, that is not becoming! You should address your comments to the chair.

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

Those opposite, who want to continue this smear campaign, are welcome to in about two hours. They will have the opportunity to get in there and ask all the questions they want. Mr Quigley has appeared before more parliamentary committees than any other officer in the last six months. He will be willingly answering any questions on any of the smears, on any of the anonymous sheets that Mr Turnbull has circulated in the press gallery. If they want to continue to rely on a convicted criminal's testimony then they are welcome to—a man who took bribes, a man who solicited bribes. At least Godwin Grech was, at that stage, an unimpeachable public servant. They have been relying on a convicted criminal who took bribes, sought bribes and who took kickbacks. Those opposite will have every opportunity to question Mr Quigley at length at four o'clock or later on today when Senate estimates has Mr Quigley in front of it.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. To be very clear, does Mr Quigley have your unqualified support, Minister?

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

I said yes and I stand by that.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness, Senator Arbib. Can the minister outline to the Senate how many dwellings have been constructed under the federal government's housing agenda and, specifically, can the minister provide an update as to how many social housing dwellings have been completed? What has been the benefit in creating jobs under these projects?

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

I thank Senator Moore for the question and for her ongoing interest in the Social Housing Initiative and in our housing agenda. Access to safe, secure and affordable housing is crucial in ensuring that Australians have a foundation upon which to participate in their community.

I am proud, as a Labor minister, to inform the Senate that more than 20,000 dwellings have been delivered across the federal government's housing programs to date. I am also happy to inform the Senate that the government's $5.6 billion Social Housing Initiative is on track and delivering much-needed homes to vulnerable Australians. Under this program, 14,400 social housing dwellings have been completed, with a further 5,000 homes currently under construction. We expect to be able to deliver 19,600 new dwellings under the stimulus as a result of the cost effectiveness of the delivery of the program. This is because the average cost per dwelling under the Social Housing Initiative is around $270,000, about 10 per cent lower than the $300,000 expected average. Of course, that is just the new construction that is being undertaken in the stimulus. Already 84,000 existing social housing dwellings have undergone repairs and maintenance, of which 16,800 would have been uninhabitable without the work being undertaken. The Social Housing Initiative also helped to support around 15,000 jobs across Australia during the global financial crisis, something which this Labor government is extremely proud about, and the 700,000 that Senator Carr talked about earlier. But that is not all the government is doing. It is not just the Social Housing Initiative in terms of housing. Also, more than 1,800 social dwellings have been built through the national partnership agreement on social housing, 3,800 homes have been built under the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which provides a 20 per cent rental discount for people who are most in need, and A Place to Call Home has delivered 289 homes to date and is on track to deliver 651 homes. (Time expired)

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister also outline to the Senate how these homes are assisting those who are homeless in our community? Because homelessness is not just about providing a home, as there is also need for support services, in what other measures to support homelessness is the federal government investing?

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

Many of the homes that are being delivered under the govern­ment's social housing programs will provide accommodation for the elderly, people with disability and those who are unable to afford housing. At least half of the 21,000 homes constructed under the Social Housing Initiative will go to people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The government is proud of its record investment in the area of addressing homelessness. We have provided an additional $5 million since 2008 to better address homelessness. There are 184 new or expanded initiatives under the national partnership agreement. But it is more than just providing a roof; we also need to provide services to people most in need. That is why I was so pleased that in the budget the government put forward an extra $200 million under the watch of the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mr Butler, in terms of mental health, for support for accommodation. This support will go to people most in need, providing them with the assistance they need to establish a home. (Time expired)

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister please outline to the Senate how the government has partnered with the not-for-profit sector to deliver housing for people in need? Can he outline how these partnerships work and what the not-for-profit sector is doing at the moment to provide better services for those who are homeless?

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

Government cannot do this alone—the whole of the community needs to work together to reduce homelessness. Although we have targets, we are working closely with our partners in the not-for-profit sector and in the corporate sector. This morning I sat down with ANGLICARE. Many of their CEOs are here in Canberra to discuss policy with members of all parties and across both chambers. Organisations like ANGLICARE have done such a fantastic job partnering with govern­ment to better deliver for those who are homeless.

I should mention that tonight I, along with many CEOs, business leaders, community leaders and other politicians will take part in the Vinnies CEO Sleepout, which is taking place across the country. Already, through this program, Vinnies has raised over $3 million. That money will go to their homelessness services. It will help people on the ground and provide them with attention for urgent needs. I thank all those who have donated to me and I thank all of those who have donated to all the CEOs taking part. It is much-needed funding and a very important cause. I wish good luck to everyone taking part tonight.

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

Mr President, I pass on my good luck too to everyone doing it in Canberra. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a short answer to the couple of questions took on notice from Senator McGauran yesterday. Given the circumstances, I will read it out briefly—it is only a paragraph:

The Minister for Resources and Energy has not said that certain mines will close. Rather, he has said that no-one can rule out a mine or two closing. This statement applies under all circumstances, whether a carbon price applies or not. Just as some mines were closed during the global financial crisis, the government cannot guarantee that mines will not close in future. Individual mines can close for a range of reasons; however, the government is confident that Australia's coal sector will expand in coming years. The minister's statement was not based on any modelling and he was not referring to any mine in particular.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Fisher, Boswell and Birmingham relating to carbon pricing.

Specifically, these questions were about the carbon tax. While I was listening to Senator Wong's answers I was reminded of a particularly distasteful joke which mentions the three greatest lies ever perpetrated by humanity. I think we have to add a fourth one to that, and that is Ms Gillard's lie to the Australian people when she said, just six days out from an election: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' That goes down as one of the greatest lies in the political history of this country. It is a travesty for the Australian people. We know it is going to put the cost of living up. That has been established. We know it is going to cost tens of thousands of jobs, and we know it is going to see industry exported overseas and emissions exported overseas as well. We also know, but because the government is unwilling or unable to supply an answer we can only deduce, that it is actually going to have zero beneficial impact on the environment.

Let me remind senators that we are talking about emissions of carbon dioxide, that odourless, colourless gas that is exhaled by all of us as we go about our daily business. According to the government this is rampant pollution and, despite the fact that Australia contributes only 1.4 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions globally, apparently we are going to save the planet by imposing a tax on the Australian people. But when called upon to justify this tax, Senator Wong, with all the arrogance that we have come to associate with her approach to policy, said it is because we are not slackers—Australians are not slackers, so let us whack them with a new tax. What sort of logical conclusion is that for any government to make, that because Australians are not slackers, which I presume to mean they work hard and pick up their end of the bargain, we should whack them with a new tax. There is an incentive to do a bit more! The logic that has flowed over the last three years on climate change policy saw it characterised as the great moral issue of our time and saw it characterised by the great success of Copenhagen, which led to the dumping of that 'necessary' thing called the emissions trading scheme, then to the dumping of Kevin Rudd and then the dumping of the minister afterwards. Now we have seen the policy of no carbon tax dumped. We have also seen the citizens assembly, to convince the people of Australia about the merits of this great new tax, dumped. The only things we have not seen dumped are those two spruikers of government policy who are paid extortionate amounts of money to peddle lies and misleading statements. I am referring to the person Senator Wong once described as an 'input', Mr Garnaut, and Professor Tim Flannery. These people have been trotting out government policy and outlandish scaremongering and fear campaigns which have no justification in fact. They take a kernel of truth and then embellish it to say that the seas are going to rise by eight storeys, we are going to have to save the planet, and the Barrier Reef is going to die—all these things which have later been debunked. Of course, the government never admit that, because they will never admit they have got things wrong. Clearly the Australian people know they have got this dreadfully wrong, because the Australian people cannot afford a new tax, no matter how this government dresses it up. This is not about saving the environment; it is about the government trying to save their spendthrift ways. It is about them putting more money into the government coffers. In fact, there have been reports that government ministers have said: 'You're going to get a tax because we need the cash and we need it very quickly.'

This is a problem. We have got a government that cannot manage its budget finances. The failed climate change minister is now in the finance portfolio where $50,000 million more than they have taken from taxpayers will be spent in the year ahead. That is an alarming thing for any Australian. We know there is disquiet and distrust about it, because we know that people are going to the Treasurer and saying all sorts of things to him, in a very pointed manner, and we would like to hear from one of those people shortly—'Slugger' Hutchins, sorry, Senator Hutchins. I would like to know how you got your new nickname. It comes back to this: the Australian people trust governments to do the right thing for them. It is not just about the economy, it is not just about their finances. They want to make sure there are practical solutions for the environment. What we do know is that no matter how the government wants to dress this up, there will be no benefit to the environment from this carbon tax. There will be none whatsoever. It will only be bad. It will be bad for everyone except for this government, but they will ultimately reap the rewards of what they have sown at the election.

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

We just see the scare campaign continuing, and it is disappointing that Senator Bernardi, with many of his colleagues, continues on this program just denying the settled science. I do not pretend to be a scientist, but I have been briefed, I have been lobbied by some of the smartest people I have ever met, who have taken us through study after study, the science, and have certainly convinced me. I have also been in international forums where, again, scientists—the best minds across the world—have said: 'We need to act on climate change. We need to act soon, and the sooner we act the cheaper it will be for everybody.'

I clearly believe in climate change. I have been overwhelmingly convinced. Unfortun­ately, the coalition is so out of step with the rest of the world. You only have to look in Britain, where the conservative government there also believes in climate change and taking firm action. The conservative government in New Zealand also believes in climate change and taking firm action. If you look across the world—and I know the coalition does not want to hear this—we see governments taking firm, strong, short-, medium- and long-term action every day. Everybody, except for the coalition here in Australia, now understands that we need to take action to save our climate. Who do we need to do this for? Not for me, and not for most people here. We need to do it for our children. If we want to have a healthy, prosperous economy and country into the future, we need to take these actions now, and we need to get the results soon.

When I said that the coalition are the only ones across the world who do not believe in climate change, of course, they used to once. They went to the 2007 election with a policy that believed in climate change and, in fact, was going to do something about it. What were they going to do about it? They were going to put a price on carbon, the very thing that Senator Bernardi says is this harmless thing that we breathe out every day and we should not have to worry about it. Quite frankly, Senator Bernardi, I think you ought to get together with the old tobacco lobby and the old asbestos lobby. You could find some crackpots here and there who would come out and tell you anything to support your negative scare campaign. They are the people you want to keep mixing with, because, quite frankly, you obviously get on very well with those sorts of people. But the rest of us need to move on.

We know from all the modelling that has been done—and I am no economist but I know and I have been briefed by some of the best economists around—that the sooner we take action, and take action that is going to make a difference, the cheaper it will be for our economy. What is wrong with making the polluters pay for the cost of pollution? What is wrong with putting a price on the cost of pollution? Really, what we are arguing is that we want the market to drive innovation and drive solutions, and we think that the best way to do that is the market. I would have thought that those on the other side would have agreed that the market tools would be a good way to transform our economy to address climate change. I would have thought that is what you would be believing. But, no, you have got a policy of saying, 'Let people pollute for nothing, continue to increase unlimited pollution and we will just use taxpayers' money to clean up the mess.' That is your policy. Keep polluting; pollute as much as you like, the taxpayer will pick up the bill. We do not believe that. We believe that market mechanisms will drive innovation and will assist in transforming this economy so that it can actually address climate change and start reducing the pollution in this country. We think that is a smart way to go and we know that it is the cheapest way to go. We know it is the cheapest and most effective way to go, and that is why we are going to do it: because it is the right thing for this country. It is the right thing not necessarily for me but for my kids and your kids and our grandkids and the future generations. I am not going to be here in this parliament as someone who ignores the signs, ignores the science and abrogates my responsibility as a legislator to do the right thing by this country, the right thing by our economy and the right thing by our children. Those on that side will stand condemned in the future if they actually stop this happening. You may think that is very funny. I thought you actually cared about children. You are actually voting to abandon their futures and abandon a healthy, strong economy. Shame on you.

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

Way back in the 2007 election campaign, a long time ago—certainly a Prime Minister ago and it could soon be two prime ministers ago—a press release was put out by Ms Gillard, the then Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, and Senator Wong, the Labor Party's campaign spokeswoman at the time, if I recall correctly. In their joint press release, they stated quite clearly, simply and succinctly: 'Labor will end the abuse of taxpayer funded government advertising.' It was almost as succinct and clear a message as: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Yet today we have had Minister Combet announce that yet more millions of dollars of taxpayers' money will be ploughed into government advertising, will be ploughed into an abuse of taxpayer funds, because it will be government advertising designed to simply sell the government's deeply unpopular carbon tax policy.

The best that Senator Wong in her answers to questions today could offer was, 'Our spending is not as bad as you guys' were.' That is the best that she could offer. It is also basically the best that Mr Combet can offer in his media release today. I thought those words 'Labor will end the abuse of taxpayer funded government advertising' meant that you would actually end the abuse; not be 'not quite as bad as some things that happened in the past' but actually end the abuse, actually stop it from happening, actually stop the waste of taxpayer funds—but apparently not. Apparently that promise is as meaningless as so many other promises, and in particular as meaningless as this core promise about there not being a carbon tax under a government that Ms Gillard leads.

So we have this remarkable situation today where the government has ditched its promise to get advertising through—but it is going to have its advertising approved by their coalition partners, the Greens. Senator Wong again highlighted in Mr Combet's media release where the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee would approve the final shape of what is to be advertised. So the Greens will be involved in this, despite the fact that Senator Bob Brown has railed against government funded advertising even more passionately and vehemently than anybody on that side of the chamber has managed to do. We have hypocrisy writ large here from the government and from their colleagues in the Greens that they are all getting together to work out how they are going to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars on this government funded advertising campaign.

As if that is not bad enough, buried in this $12 million for advertising, nearly $14 million for public education and awareness, they are going to go along and fund a bunch of their mates who have been helping the government out nicely on the sideline. They are setting up a range of grants programs within that. They are going to offer $250,000 grants to a range of organisations. Today the minister said, 'We have announced the grants program, but we do not have any guidelines and we do not have any rules so of course I cannot rule out whether organisations like GetUp! or the ACTU will be eligible for these grants.' These are the organisations out there spending money on the government's behalf today but who no doubt have every hope they will be able to recoup their money through government grants tomorrow. That is the outrage of the situation we are confronted with here.

We know the government is going to do this. We know it not just through our television sets, not just through those sorts of organisations, but also from evidence in Senate estimates, where we heard how they are going to run a range of deliberative forums. These deliberative forums, we were told, would be rather small-scale groups of people. Another phrase for it might be 'kitchen table discussions'. So we have waste right around the country. The government is going to fund the nation's kitchen table discussions on climate change and its carbon tax as well.

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

No roundtable?

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

Senator Boyce might like to host a kitchen table discussion. I am sure she would welcome it.

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

I can't; I don't have a round table.

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

But I reckon Senator Boyce would be happy to pay for the tea and coffee and bickies herself; she would not need a government grant to do it. Not so with this government. The money will flow and it will flow to all of their mates, and they will break every promise they have made in this regard.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue we are discussing this afternoon is one that many on our side have had to think about very seriously. The issue of carbon tax, how to deal with carbon emissions, has been on the political agenda for some time. Indeed, Mr Deputy President, you probably discussed it in your party room, when your party was in power. It was an issue, as has been outlined, that was discussed at the 2007 election and it was dealt with as a policy issue in one form or another by the previous Howard government. I say that because, as we know, this issue has taken out three political leaders in the last three years, because we are still grappling with how to deal with it.

It is all right, I suppose, for us here to consider this issue, but out in industry you and I know that they want some certainty on this. Of course there are many who are opposed to the introduction of this carbon tax. But I know—and I am pretty sure that you would know from your contacts in the wider industry and the community, Mr Deputy President—that, despite the fact that there may be opposition to it from industry, industry does want some certainty. Industry also accepts that there is going to be some control in one form or another over emissions and that there is going to be a price put on it. What the government is proposing, whether it is liked or not by the opposition, is that there will be a figure put on carbon dioxide emissions.

I do not see that necessarily industry particularly likes that—probably the big polluters are very much opposed to it—but in the end you and I know that they have already worked out a price that they are going to pay for carbon dioxide emissions. They are already budgeted for it—they have already planned for it and they already have an idea about when it will come in. If we are defeated at the next election without introducing these measures and your side becomes the government, you will introduce measures of your own of some sort—an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax. Do not get up and say that that is not the case. You have to think about this, because industry will say to you, 'We cannot continue to have this division and this debate in Australia, because we want certainty.'

As Senator Marshall said, even con­servative controlled governments have introduced a form of tax on carbon emis­sions. The actions of the Cameron Con­servative government in introducing a carbon tax in the United Kingdom must cause particular displeasure to the coalition. In New Zealand, the measures were not introduced by a conservative government but by the previous Labor government; yet they are not being overturned, because industry has sought certainty. I continue to emphasise the word 'certainty', because that is what people tell me.

I have my own views on where this is going, and in the end my view is that we have to give the community and industry some undertaking about what is going to happen. If you get into power, you will introduce measures along the same lines as the ones that we are proposing, because you will be told by the likes of Shell, and Coal and Allied, that they want something done. Please do not come in and say that this will not happen, because you and I know that it will. I think it is dishonest to suggest otherwise, because we know that measures have to be introduced, and, whether reluctantly or not, this government is proceeding to do it so that people will know in the end what they are going to pay.

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

It is not often that I disagree with my very good colleague Senator Bernardi, but I must admit that today I need to do so. He said that Senator Wong was intending to attack Australians because they were not slackers—that she was going to slug them with a carbon tax because they were not slackers—and he asked how this was repaying them. I disagree with Senator Bernardi, because I think that the intention of Senator Wong, the Prime Minister and the Labor government is to turn Australians into slackers before they slug them with a carbon tax.

If you look at the figures that came out yesterday from ACIL Tasman, you will see that 3,000 jobs will be lost in the coal industry in New South Wales and 1,100 jobs will be lost in the coal industry in Queensland in just the next three years if a carbon tax is implemented. What is more, 23,000 jobs are forecast to be lost in the steel industry, and, over 20 years or so, the steel industry in Australia could be forced to close down. Let us look at those lost jobs and think about where the people made unemployed might go. There is nowhere for them to go, because the only thing that is holding the Australian economy together right now is the mining industry. If you look at every other sector, there is no growth; there is only dismay and lack of confidence.

A National Australia Bank survey which came out yesterday said that in May confidence levels for business outside the mining sector fell back to confidence levels before the dismal dead-cat jump of last year's Christmas sales, followed by the appalling floods and other problems. Without the mining industry there is no Australian economy, and Senator Wong will do a very good job, if she implements her carbon tax, of creating a nation of slackers, because there will not be any jobs to be had. She can happily impose a tax on those people and on those industries.

I was very amused by the comments of Senator Marshall and Senator Hutchins. They seem to think that only the so-called big polluters will pay the carbon tax. These so-called big polluters use coal to manufacture steel. Steel is used to erect buildings—commercial, residential, the bridges that we drive on, the whole gamut. The so-called big polluters produce cement, which is used to make concrete and which goes into every building in this country. The so-called big polluters use coal to generate electricity, which is used by every person in this country. So we are all polluters, and we will all pay. No wonder the Australian people are concerned about the idea of this tax and about the levels of compensation. The responsibility for creating pollution cannot be quarantined off to a couple of hundred big polluters, whatever the Labor Party thinks that phrase means. Everyone in this country who uses energy and the materials produced by energy contributes to the pollution and the emissions that cause climate change.

This is something that we are in nationally and needs to be considered nationally, yet we had the announcement from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Combet, today, which has been confirmed by Senator Wong. Senator Wong tells us that it is not a $12 million advertising campaign but a $12 million public information campaign. Could she tell us if the public information will include what the cost per tonne of carbon tax will be? No-one knows what that will be. Could she tell us if the public information will tell us which industries will be affected by this tax? No-one knows which ones they will be. I guess that we would all think that $12 million was cheap to get an answer to some of these questions, which have been asked for months and months with no response for this government because they simply cannot get a plan implemented. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

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

In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 48 of 2010-11: Performance audit: monitoring and compliance arrange­ments supporting quality of care in residential aged care homes.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my privilege to present on behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges, Senator Johnston, correspondence relating to the application of parliamentary privilege to working papers and reports from the Australian National Audit Office.

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

Order! The President has received letters from party leaders nominating senators to be members of committees.

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

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Australia’s Food Processing Sector—Select Committee––

Appointed––

Senators Colbeck, Fisher and Ryan

Participating members: Senators Abetz, Adams, Back, Bernardi, Birmingham, Boswell, Boyce, Brandis, Bushby, Cash, Coonan, Cormann, Eggleston, Fierravanti-Wells, Fifield, Heffernan, Humphries, Johnston, Joyce, Kroger, Macdonald, Mason, Nash, Parry, Payne, Ronaldson, Scullion and Williams.

Australia’s Immigration Detention Network––Joint Select Committee––

Appointed––Senator Hanson-Young

Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee––

Appointed––

Substitute member: Senator Siewert to replace Senator Milne for the committee’s inquiry into live export markets

Participating member: Senator Milne.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the order of consideration of government business orders of the day for the remainder of today be as follows:

No. 2––Combating the Financing of People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2011

No. 5––Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011

No. 6––Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Bill 2011

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011

No. 7––Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2011

No. 8––Midwife Professional Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

No. 1––National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010.

Question agreed to.

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

The President has received a letter from Senator Fifield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Gillard government's failure to secure Australia's borders and refusal to implement effective and humane policies to deny people smugglers the product they sell.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

On 24 June last year—a date that is burned in the hearts and the minds of so many Australians, not least of all the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was politically executed on that day and who clearly, based on his performance of late, has not forgotten this, and possibly also Bill Shorten, who—

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

Order! You must refer to the member by his proper name.

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

When Minister Bill Shorten picked up the Australian newspaper this morning he must have started wondering whether the little stunt he pulled this time last year had actually failed miserably, because the current Prime Minister's ratings are now lower than Mr Rudd's were and are at an all-time low. On 24 June last year the now Prime Minister—and I use the word 'now' rather loosely; I am using a little bit of poetic licence when I use the word 'now'—said:

I accept that the Government has lost track. We will get back on track. I have taken control for precisely that purpose.

When the current Prime Minister—and it will be interesting to see what happens next week; I am looking forward to being here on the 24th—said that, there was one policy area that she clearly did not have front of mind: Australia's border protection. This government has been a complete, total and utter failure when it comes to protecting Australia's borders.

To understand the gravity of this government's failures you need to contrast the situation under the former Howard government when we left office in 2007 with the situation we have today under the current Gillard Labor government. In 2001, 43 boats arrived. Back then the Howard government said that that was a lot of boats. Those on the other side must be praying every night for us to get back to 43. The Howard government said that that was a lot of boats. Do you know what they did? They took some very tough decisions: they implemented the Pacific solution and on top of that they introduced temporary protection visas. And do you know what happened? The number of boats that came to Australia in 2002 was reduced to zero. There were 43 boats in 2001. The Howard government took some very tough decisions—they introduced the Pacific solution and introduced temporary protection visas—and guess what: the Howard government policies did exactly what those on the other side are now telling the Australian people they want to do, which is to stop the boats. There you have it. They are proven policies. Those policies actually worked. In the last six years under the Howard government fewer boats arrived than in the last six weeks under the current Gillard Labor government, and ironically those boats have arrived since the Prime Minister and the minister announced the be-all and end-all policy solution to the border protection fiasco, which is their so-called 'Malaysian deal'. The Malaysian deal is going to solve all of the government's border protection problems! But the only problem to date is that they have not actually finalised the deal. We do not seem to have any real details surrounding it. There is certainly no signature on any piece of paper and the government must be hoping that the Malaysian deal does not go the same way as the East Timor deal, which was just announcement after announcement after announcement only to find that the East Timor deal was never, ever going to happen—but it sounded really, really good at the time.

This is a policy area that has been in complete disarray since the government in August 2008 took steps to wind back the strong and proven border protection measures of the former Howard government. This is the extent of the disarray in the border protection area. In November 2009 there was reported a bloody fight breaking out on Christmas Island involving 150 Afghans and Sri Lankans. Since that time we have had a series of incidents: further rooftop protests from 20 to 22 September 2010; 90 detainees breaking out of the Northam immigration detention facility in September of last year; and on 15 November a violent brawl at Broadmeadows. And it continues on. On 17 November last year we had a rooftop protest at Villawood. At the airport lodge between 7 and 10 February, 11 people were hospitalised and a further 11 were actually taken to the watch-house after further disturbances. In February of this year on Christmas Island, in the family compound, nonetheless there were 13 people injured, windows were smashed, three asylum seekers were arrested and 15 young males were moved off the island. We then had a breakout at the Asti Motel and on 17 March there was a protest at Curtin. And it keeps on going. On 17 March a young Afghan man actually died at Scherger. On 28 March an Afghan asylum seeker died at the Curtin detention centre and on 12 and 13 March there were mass breakouts at Christmas Island followed by the horrendous riots that were watched by so many Australians. Then, of course, we had the Villawood riots. Who could forget the Villawood riots? They were actually preceded by the finding of a bomb, no less, in the detention centre, a bomb that the minister was not aware of until he was asked on talkback radio what his response was. He did not have one because the department had not made him aware of such a serious incident.

So what is the Labor government's response to date to this rolling crisis? Now we have what has been called the 'Malaysian solution'—the deal by which we send one asylum seeker to what is looking like almost certain hell in Malaysia and in return we get back five in Australia. Why are we entering the Malaysian deal? It is because the minister is now telling the people of Australia that we need to break the people-smuggling model. What the government refuses to understand, despite the opposition telling them for the last three years, is that it is the government's policies that are encouraging the people smugglers. It is the government's policies that are providing a framework for the people smugglers. In relation to the Malaysian deal those on that side of the chamber, those on the Labor side of politics, like to pontificate that they have the monopoly on human rights in Australia. If that is true, they really need to rethink the Malaysian deal, because to date neither the minister nor the Prime Minister has been able to guarantee to this parliament that they will be able to ensure that the human rights of those that we send over to Malaysia are actually going to be in any way upheld. There is an article in the Daily Telegraph today which says:

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen will rely on the Malaysian government to keep the country's paramilitary—volunteer officers who carry weapons—away from the 800 asylum seekers sent from Australia.

The most recent refugee tribunal report has actually found that members of this paramilitary group have been involved in extortion, rape, and other crimes for which they have received little or no punishment. But does that worry those on the other side? The answer is no. But does it worry the federal parliament? The answer to that is actually yes, because yesterday in the federal parliament, in the other place, a motion passed through the House of Representatives 70 to 68 with the support of the opposition; the Greens MP, Adam Bandt, who moved the motion; and the Independents Andrew Wilkie and Bob Katter. Interestingly, some of those people are actually members that the government currently relies on to ensure that it stays in power. Even those members are absolutely disgusted with the government's antics in relation to the Malaysian deal.

People smugglers must be denied a product to sell. The coalition has been saying that since August 2008, but as long as the Labor Party have their way on border protection the people smugglers will continue to find ways to bring people to Australia, risking their lives in the process. The Labor Party need to wake up, listen to the coalition and implement our strong, proven policies. (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we are waiting for Senator Sterle to come and contribute to this debate this afternoon, in addressing the motion moved by the opposition I would like to again point out that here we are once again hearing tirades from the opposition about a very complex, difficult issue. They always present a simplistic view of the world and do not take into account that this is in fact a multifaceted problem and one that the government is addressing in a number of ways. That includes addressing it from a regional perspective, working with our near neighbours to ensure that the issue of people smuggling and the transport of people is addressed from a regional perspective in cooperation with our near neighbours. They know full well that we will not have a resolution to the issue until we get that cooperation from our neighbours, and that is what we are striving to do.

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

Not with much luck!

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, I actually think that you do not want there to be success, because it suits you to be able to get up here and bang on about this issue time after time—

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

Because of your constant failures in this area!

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

day after day, MPI after MPI. It suits you to carry on that way. I am proud of the government's record in this area. It is a difficult issue, and we are working very hard to solve it. And I know that now Senator Sterle is going to add to this debate with some considered opinions, unlike those rantings that we continue to hear from your side of the chamber.

Senator Cash interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Sterle, it would be normal for me to call somebody from the other side but I understand that the whip has agreed that you should fill the rest of the time allocated at this time.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do not realise how lucky I am sometimes. And I do appreciate your assistance, and that of the opposition too.

I do wish to make comment today on this matter of public importance—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So important that you didn't turn up!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was actually in a committee and trying to discuss aviation safety in this country, which I do put great importance on. So I will not apologise—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—for having the nation's travelling safety at heart before this frivolous MPI.

I just want to quote those words from Senator Fifield:

The Gillard government's failure to secure Australia's borders and refusal—

this is the key, if we are going to get some truth out here—

to implement effective and humane policies to deny people smugglers the product they sell.

Most times I am proud to be a Western Australian; in fact, nearly all the time I am proud to be a Western Australian. I am a first-generation Australian—my parents were both from overseas, my father from war-torn Europe and my mother from war-torn England. My father came out under similar circumstances to those in which we see people coming to Australia now: fleeing conflict. But I just want to say this: he was invited to this country. He came to this country in the late forties, after the war, with his five sisters and his mother and father—a brother was lost in the war—and he was so proud to make this country his home. He was so proud that he was afforded the opportunity to be given a brand-new life in a wonderful country such as Australia. But I am so darned—I was going to say 'damned', but I will not—embarrassed when I hear people absolutely attack at every opportunity people—

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

Tut, tut, tut!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see Senator Cash shaking her head over there. This makes me even wilder. I saw Senator Cash in action up in Northam, absolutely thriving with racist comments that were thrown out of the public meeting!

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

And we saw you in Northam—you kept silent! You were ashamed!

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

Order!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were 800 good people there. No—there were not 800 good people. There were 800 people, and the majority in Northam went to give questions and to hear answers from their elected representatives.

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

And they didn't get any! There were no government members there.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I turned up I was not allowed to speak! So don't you start that rubbish on me, you hypocrite! You absolute hypocrite!

Senator Cash interjecting—

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

Order! It is out of order to shout across the chamber and to address a senator on the other side. You will make your address through the chair.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The senator referred to Senator Cash in an unparliamentary fashion, and I think you should ask him to withdraw. He called her a hypocrite.

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

I am sorry—I did not hear that word used. But if you used the word 'hypocrite' then it is unparliamentary, Senator Sterle, and I ask you to withdraw.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw. But I will not withdraw from my refrain to say how embarrassed I am when I go and hear the minority, the rabble—the horrible, ugly minority—that just want to throw every disgusting barb at people who seek asylum in this fantastic country. To hear comments like, 'They'll slit your throats,' and, 'We should use them as target practice for our Navy while they are floating around on the boats,' hurts me—and I do not think that I am alone here—and I am absolutely disgusted to think that fellow Australians have this view. And it is probably not that much of a minority—I hope it is a minority; but we hear this nonsense coming from the other side of the chamber about what a threat and fear asylum seekers are to our borders. I read this rubbish here about our having failed in 'humane policies to deny people smugglers the product they sell', so we had better get a few facts out here quite clearly.

I did not have to, but I opened the Australian newspaper on the weekend, and there is the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, on a wonderful opportunity for the Liberal Party to get some media on the weekend and visit Nauru, to get a photo of him sticking his head through a window and saying that the Nauru detention centre is ready to open up—let's get going. I have been told—and I will be very happy to come into this chamber and apologise profusely if I give the chamber the wrong information or mislead the chamber—that what he stuck his head into was the Nauru primary school. Yes, it used to be the detention centre—and it is now the primary school. So it would be very interesting to know from those opposite who like to condemn everyone who was not born here in Australia—who should not be allowed into our country—why Mr Abbott was sticking his head through a school window. Was he saying that the Nauru school should be shut and those children should be sent elsewhere? What was he actually saying? I think the fourth estate have got a role to play here by reporting and telling the truth. I think they have been very poor in certain circumstances with that.

Nauru was not a humane way of taking the product that the people smugglers sell. What actually happened was that 70 per cent—and I will be challenged on that; I am happy to take that argument up—of those who went to Nauru, including children, who were locked behind barbed wire for three, four or five years, came to Australia. It is a well-known fact that that lot over that side of the chamber and on the other side of this great building failed to tell the complete truth that we all know darn well: that Nauru is not a signatory to the UNHCR. We all know that. So Mr Abbott can run around, and he can take every photo opportunity and stick his head into every school window on Nauru that he wants to—but tell the truth.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Neither is Malaysia!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You want to talk about Malaysia? I will talk about Malaysia. I am happy to have this conversation—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—with any senator on that side of the chamber at any time, because I do not have a problem with genuine refugees seeking refuge in Australia. I have no problem, and I have full support from Minister Bowen and Prime Minister Gillard, with the Malaysian solution.

Just so we get this very clear, currently in Australia 13,750 refugees are accepted in our country every year. It was no different when Mr Howard was the Prime Minister and it is no different now. What we have proposed with the Malaysian solution is that the next 800 who come across on boats seeking asylum illegally will be sent to Malaysia. In exchange for those 800 we will receive, in the four years after, an extra 1,000 people per year—1,000 genuine asylum seekers who seek refuge in Australia. What that will take us to is that, instead of taking 13,750 refugees, we will be taking 14,750 refugees. There is no disguise; there are no lies or mistruths. That is clearly what the deal is. If that deters those scum of the earth, the people smugglers, takes away their trade and does not use the asylum seekers as the pawns then we should be getting full support from the other side of the chamber.

We should have full, unequivocal support from that side of the chamber. They should give us a hand and support us in our efforts—not leave people languishing in Nauru for three, four and five years, including having children behind barbed wire, but support us in our efforts.

Opposition senators interjecting—

It is very mischievous, and, you know what, Mr Acting Deputy President Ferguson? I have the greatest respect for you as the Acting Deputy President. I am ignoring the remarks from the other side of the chamber because they really are stupid. They are absolutely incoherent, and it is just opportunism. As I said to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, as a first-generation Australian—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I am so sorry, Mr Deputy President, because I forgot that you do have another week to go and it is fantastic that you are still here. I am sorry, Mr Deputy President.

As a first generation Australian, it does hurt me to think that Australians have this belief that no-one should be allowed in this country unless they are born here. (Time expired)

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

Mr Deputy President, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this discussion. Before Senator Sterle left, I was about to compliment his family, but unfortunately I will have to do it to his back. I quote the famous words of the then shadow minister for immigration:

Another boat … Another policy failure.

Who was that shadow minister? It was none other than now Prime Minister Gillard. Since then she has not had occasion to say it very often; she has not had occasion to get it out of the back drawer very often and say, 'Another boat, another policy failure.' Since the Rudd-Gillard government there have been no fewer than 229 occasions when the coalition might have got that equivalent document out from under the counter, because that is the number of boats, representing 11,472 people, since Labor came into government—people who have come to these shores through the process of asylum seekers on vessels. Why would I compliment Senator Sterle and his family? It is because he made the very comment which has been the underpinning of the Howard government and this coalition and which will be the underpinning of the Abbott government, when it is in government: that is, as Senator Sterle said, his father was invited to this country—and that is exactly what Australia wants, it is exactly what Australia will do and it is exactly what the Howard government said when the then Prime Minister said:

We will decide who comes to this country …

Mr Sterle Senior was invited to this country. This country, Australia, has a very proud record of accepting refugees. We have had thousands, tens of thousands, of humani­tarian refugees of the type Mr and Mrs Sterle Senior would have been.

What is also interesting is: when the Howard government stopped the boats, what was the decline in the number of refugees who came to this country on a humanitarian basis? The answer is nil. The numbers stayed the same. And what is of absolute shock and disgust to me, as I stand in this chamber, is the fact that people who have been through the UNHCR process, the very people who have been accepted as humanitarian refugees to come to Australia, are languishing in refugee camps in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, whilst others jump the queue. In the event that these people are genuine, let them be processed in the genuine way and let them join the queue—but at the end of the queue. What has been put to me recently—and, I think, very disturbingly—is that there is corruption in these humanitarian refugee camps, where people who would otherwise be getting to the top of that queue find, without their even knowing it, that their names are being replaced by others because of corruption being offered to those who are managing it. That is reprehensible, and that is what we must not allow to happen.

When he was the minister for immigration, Philip Ruddock invited the then shadow minister, Ms Gillard, to Nauru. She went to Nauru with him to have a look and, contrary to what Senator Sterle just said, people had the freedom to wander around that island. Did they go into their accommodation at night? Yes, they did. Were they locked up? Why would you lock people up on an island? Where would they go on that island? Philip Ruddock had the courtesy and the decency to actually take the shadow minister to Nauru on that occasion to have a look at what was going on. Nauru is not a signatory to the UNHCR. It is very willing to become so. Is Malaysia a signatory to the UNHCR? The answer, of course, is no, they are not. As one who was involved in business throughout the last decade in Malaysia, one who in fact had some association with prisons and detention centres—but I hasten to tell you, Mr Deputy President, not from the inside but consulting to the Malaysian government—I can say that it is not a place you would want to be. I remember that under then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, when he decided that they would remove illegals from Malaysia, they gave them 72 hours to get out of that country, and we saw footage, regrettably, of people being beaten as they were trying to get on boats at the ports in Malaysia to go back to countries like the Philippines, Indonesia and others. It would be an interesting question for people who are facing the prospect of leaving these shores under this new, ill-conceived scheme of Minister Bowen, to be asked if they would want to go to Malaysia or go to Nauru and be managed by Australians. It would be a very interesting poll, because I have absolutely no doubt where they would want to go. The Howard government had a problem and found a solution. The Rudd-Gillard government inherited a solution and have turned it back into a problem.

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

Today we have before us a matter that has been put forward as a mean-spirited political stunt. Those opposite are deter­mined to contribute nothing more than criticism, scaremongering and misinforma­tion to the asylum seeker debate. This debate that we are having here today is just another example of these tactics. When have those opposite ever offered a humane, truly collaborative and achievable approach for how Australia should deal with people seeking asylum? What did they ever offer in the way of a substantive policy aimed at breaking the business model of people smugglers? They can hardly argue that turning away the boats and dumping people on Nauru only to settle them in Australia after protracted periods of time was a credible, humane and effective policy. How does the Nauru solution secure Australia's border or deny people smugglers the 'product'—as these asylum seekers are described in the matter before us—they sell?

Those opposite refuse to acknowledge that Australia cannot go it alone on the problems of people smuggling and irregular migration. While this government works hard in collaboration with our neighbours to develop and implement an approach to asylum seekers which balances our humanitarian obligations, the protection of our borders and a plan to end the profitability of people smuggling, those opposite seek to demonise asylum seekers for their own political self-interest. Mr Abbott's latest trip to Nauru is just another example—another political stunt. The fact that Mr Abbott continues to mislead the Australian people on this issue is evident in the fact that he refuses to answer how much his new Nauru solution would cost. Nauru did not work to stop the people smugglers' business model, and it was not a truly regional and cooperative solution to tackling people smuggling. What is more, the coalition left people on Nauru for extended periods of time only to settle the great majority in Australia anyway.

The UNHCR have also made it clear that Nauru is not a good option. Let us consider what the UNHCR spokesperson, Jennifer Pagonis said in 2008, when Nauru closed:

… in our view, today's closure of the centre on Nauru signals the end of a difficult chapter in Australia's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Many bona fide refugees caught by the policy spent long periods of isolation, mental hardship and uncertainty—and prolonged separation from their families.

That is the former Howard government's record.

Further, just last week a UNHCR spokesperson rejected the Liberals' claims that Nauru had been overseen and approved by the UNHCR. They have said:

UNHCR was not involved and, indeed, distanced itself from any role in overseeing or managing the processing facilities on Nauru under the Pacific Solution. Recent media reports that the centre on Nauru was approved by and run under the auspices of the UN are factually incorrect.

Just this morning on AM Agenda on Sky News, Minister Bowen talked about reports of the long-term psychological damage that Nauru caused those asylum seekers who were left there. There are still people in Australia today who are suffering that psychological damage, yet all we have seen in the House of Representatives this morning is another cheap attempt by Mr Abbott and his coalition. Their support for the motion on Malaysia does not represent a substantive policy shift for the opposition; it is just a deliberate and deceitful move to masquerade the Nauru solution as a more humane and credible alternative.

Let's set the record straight. The Gillard government has always had a plan for the strong management of our borders, and we have made significant progress towards a comprehensive and people focused care plan for asylum seekers in Australia. Let me first outline the significant progress towards the development of a regional cooperation framework for dealing with asylum seekers entering our region by boat. At the Bali process in March this year, we reached an agreement with our neighbours for a regional protection framework. That regional frame­work fits within Australia's respon­sibilities as a signatory to the refugee convention and was a response endorsed by the UNHCR. Since Bali, there have been ongoing discussions with our neighbours about how as a region we deal with those who are seeking asylum. As a result, the government is negotiating with Malaysia to prevent people smugglers profiteering out of asylum seekers trying to reach our country. The agreement will finally be agreed and signed in the coming weeks, and that will happen with the close involvement of the UNHCR.

As the minister has outlined at length, appropriate protections will be in place for those being transferred, and they will not be caned or subject to other penalties imposed on illegal immigrants. The Malaysian Prime Minister has agreed to treat any asylum seekers transferred from Australia with dignity and respect and in line with human rights standards. Whilst negotiations continue, we can be assured that this is a firm commitment. Just as the UNHCR is involved in the development of the agreement, the UNHCR will also be assisting and processing asylum seekers who are transferred. The UNHCR has publicly supported the arrangements as an opportunity to better protect refugees in our region.

The reality is that this agreement with Malaysia breaks the business model of people smugglers by removing their ability to sell a guaranteed ticket to Australia. Through this approach we hope that people seeking asylum do not continue to be treated as a commodity by people smugglers who have effectively traded their freedom. Our framework represents a more orderly and humanitarian approach to the way in which our region deals with those seeking asylum. The Prime Minister has stated that we will be working with Malaysia to conclude an agreement where the human rights of the asylum seekers we return to Malaysia will be respected. Time and time again you have heard the government give a commitment to breaking the people smugglers' business case.

The policies being negotiated are squarely aimed at removing the product that people smugglers sell and therefore stopping people from getting on boats and risking perilous sea journeys to reach Australia. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Chris Bowen, is on the record as saying that this is an agreement which will break the people smugglers' business model and at the same time mean that Australia increases its humanitarian intake. Our humanitarian intake will now be the highest it has been since 1996, when the Labor Party was last in office. This agreement means that our humanitarian intake will be increased by 1,000, from 13,750 to 14,750 each year. That is an additional 4,000 refugees that we will take in over the next four years, a commitment which those opposite do not support.

It is not good enough to peddle a policy on asylum seekers that involves sending away people who are seeking refuge and being done with it. We have the capacity to increase our humanitarian intake and that is what this agreement enables. The agreement with Malaysia is in line with Australia's international obligations, and we will remain committed signatories to the refugee convention. Genuine refugees will not be returned to dangerous circumstances under the new arrangements. The government's discussions with Papua New Guinea also remain ongoing.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that there are no quick fixes in how we respond to asylum seekers. The government has said time and time again that we are determined to end the profitability of people smuggling and develop a regional solution to a truly regional problem. To do that we are working with the UNHCR and Malaysia to (a) ensure that we break the people smugglers' business model, and (b) ensure more consistent protection outcomes across the region. It is a much more holistic approach and a truly regional and cooperative approach, unlike the bilateral agreement with Nauru those opposite cannot seem to move past. The Nauru approach involved simply sending away asylum seekers in the hope that they would go away. This was done in the knowledge that those asylum seekers would in fact be resettled in Australia after some time and, what is worse, that they would suffer significant psychological damage along the way.

In Australia we have also taken steps to ensure we have the infrastructure in place to house and support asylum seekers who are here whilst their claims are being processed. The government has planned expansions to some immigration detention facilities. (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I take you back to the election on 10 November 2001. I was working for the National Party of course, in the seat of New England. We had a sitting National Party member in Stuart St Clair, who was being challenged by what the people of New England thought to be a conservative Independent, Tony Windsor. It was a very interesting election campaign.

During that campaign we had a visit from the then minister supposedly responsible for all the problems we are talking about in this debate, Philip Ruddock. Minister Ruddock addressed a gathering in Tamworth and I was present at that gathering. He told us how in July and August 2001—this was in about October 2001—we had been getting 1,000 asylum seekers a month coming here by boat. He told us of the danger, the cost and the threat to life on those leaky and dangerous boats. He told us they had a problem and how they brought the problem to a stop.

They brought it to a stop by introducing such things as temporary protection visas. People ask: what is a temporary protection visa? It is exactly what it says: you come to Australia and you are given a visa for temporary protection until the place you come from settles down or there is some other region you can go to. There was a serious problem and it was a costly problem. Mr Ruddock said that if the Department of Immigration rejected a person's application then they could go to the Federal Court. If they failed there in their application for refugee status in Australia, they could go to the High Court. It was costing us up to $300,000 in legal fees to provide for these people to take Australia to court. We also had to pay for the government's legal team, so you can double that figure. It was hugely expensive.

The government said it would set up Nauru and process the people there. Then they would not come to our courtrooms and we would not have the costs. It would send a clear message that you do not simply jump on a boat, pay your way and come to Australia, when we allow 13,750 refugees into this country each year—genuine ones, from refugee camps. We have many such refugees in my home town of Inverell. We have had Sudanese people settle in my town over the last few years. They are good citizens, working, with opportunities and a roof over their head. One of those citizens recently was a finalist for the employees award in the Inverell Business Awards.

They are good people who have had an opportunity here since they were brought from the camps. Many Australians view those who pay their way to come here in a boat as queue jumpers, and that is the thing that frustrates them. You speak to the people who are brought to Australia from those refugee camps and from horrible situations and they will tell you that they waited a long time. They went through the process. That is what angers many Australians.

We finally solved the problem and the boat arrivals were brought virtually to a trickle. We know that it was Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who lowered the bar and did away with temporary protection visas. That sent a message that we were open for business again to those who could pay their way to come here. This is the unfortunate thing we have to stop. We have to stop this industry because of the deaths of people. We watched that footage on TV of the boat being wrecked off Christmas Island, with some 50 lives lost. Incidents like that are what we have to stop. In November last year there were reports of another boat apparently heading to Australia with around 100 asylum seekers. They have never been seen again. What we are doing is losing lives. People are being conned into paying money to the traffickers of human beings who are bringing them here and who are getting a fortune in the context of their currency and their standard of living in Indonesia or wherever. It is an industry that has taken off, and the ensuing loss of life is a problem.

We had the problem; we fixed it. This government now has a problem—and look where you are going with it. Prior to the election, the solution was going to be East Timor. But there were no negotiations or agreements with East Timor. Then it was Manus Island. Now it is Malaysia. I find it appalling that you are going to ear-tag people like cattle to send them to Malaysia, where they can walk free because they are tagged so they will not be beaten. What are we doing? Since August 2008, 11,533 asylum seekers have arrived in no fewer than 230 boats.

Look at Malaysia's record. I have been informed that, from 2002 to 2008, 1,300 people died in Malaysian detention centres or depots due to poor detention conditions. They are held in crowded conditions and receive limited water and food. Now, I do not know if that is a fact, if it is true. But, if it is true, that is deplorable. Yet this government's solution is to say, 'We'll send 800 of these people to Malaysia—no, we won't lock them up, they won't be caned; we'll have them ear-tagged,' like in the National Livestock Identification System, the NLIS. 'We'll do this and everything'll be right. It'll stop the boats.' We have had some 300 asylum seekers come to our shores in Australia and to Christmas Island since this policy was announced. It is not stopping the boats. We have in Nauru, an island of about 10,000 people, a facility built by the previous Australian government that is ready and willing to be opened, and where we can actually solve the problem. I think this comes down to arrogance.

Surely, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Rudd, should be going in and looking at this as well. Where is he? We do not see him on this issue, probably the biggest issue and one that means so much to the Australian people. Billions of dollars that we could be putting into our aged-care facilities, our hospitals or other infrastructure are now going on this scheme so that people can traffic in human beings to make money. It is a disgraceful industry, it is costing lives, it is costing our taxpayers money and we seem to be getting further and further behind instead of getting ahead by solving the problems we face with this. I urge the foreign minister to work closely with the Prime Minister and others—if that is possible as we approach the one-year anniversary of Mr Rudd's political decapitation—to solve this problem. The longer this industry goes on, the more lives are threatened. We have seen men, women and children lose their lives because of this industry. The industry must be shut down, and the government must swallow its arrogant pride and get onto a solution to the problem, not continue it, seemingly forever.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to make a contribution to today's matter of public importance. Firstly, it is all about solutions. We need to find solutions, and that is one thing this government is doing on this particular issue. We are fixing this issue by working with people in our region. The government have been working hard to implement an effective policy. It is a complex issue, this; it is not a simplistic matter that can be resolved by shifting people off to various parts of the Pacific region. This complex issue of irregular migration cannot be solved by acting alone; instead, it must be tackled by countries forming cooperative arrangements under the auspices of regional and international frameworks.

On 30 March this year, Australia secured an agreement to implement a regional cooperative framework at the Bali Process ministerial conference. At this conference, representatives of the 43 member countries, along with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, agreed to establish a regional cooperative framework to address irregular migration, improve consistency in the treatment of refugees and undermine the people-smuggling trade. Unlike the Howard government and their failed model, we have come up with a solution to deal with this particular problem.

Unless you have been living under a rock, you would know that a key aspect of the regional cooperative framework is the Malaysian transfer agreement. Asylum seekers transferred to Malaysia will have their asylum claims considered, and those in need of international protection will not be refouled. Those already waiting for an outcome will not be disadvantaged by this arrangement. Asylum seekers transferred to Malaysia will not receive any advantage in the consideration of their claims over the other 93,000 UNHCR registered refugees and asylum seekers already waiting. In exchange, Australia will resettle 4,000 UNHCR mandated refugees, demonstrating the importance we place on assisting those who face the violation of their human rights. The Gillard government have received public support from the UNHCR for this transfer agreement as an opportunity to better protect refugees, and we will assist in processing asylum seekers that are transferred under this arrangement. We believe this transfer agreement will deter people from choosing to arrive by boat. As immigration minister Chris Bowen said on 9 June:

Why would you pay a people smuggler $15,000 or so to come to Australia by boat, only to be taken back to the place where you started the boat journey, which in most cases is Malaysia? So you achieve absolutely nothing.

While the opposition would have the public believe we are being invaded by boat people, they need to be reminded that while they were in government they did not stop the boats. During John Howard's reign as Prime Minister, 240 boats arrived in Australia, carrying 13,600 asylum seekers. Global circumstances determine the number of asylum seekers coming to Australia. When the Taliban regime was brought down in 2001, many Afghanis returned home.

While our Malaysian transfer policy has been well received, Mr Tony Abbott's suggestion to reopen Nauru has not been supported by the UNHCR. UNHCR spokes­person Jennifer Pagonis had said they had 'strong concerns' about Nauru and described the closure of Nauru as 'the end of a difficult chapter in Australia’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers'. Another UNHCR spokesperson said recently:

''UNHCR was not involved and, indeed, distanced itself from any role in overseeing or managing the processing facilities on Nauru under the Pacific Solution. Recent media reports that the centre on Nauru was approved by and run under the auspices of the UN are factually incorrect.''

Minister Bowen has stated that Mr Abbott's solution would not stop boats. He said:

Nauru doesn't break the people smugglers' business model. Nauru, in the absence of other regional engagement, would simply mean that it's an offshore processing centre on the way to being resettled in Australia. The majority of refugees that were processed in Nauru ended up being resettled in Australia under the previous government, so you don't remove that incentive to come to Australia by boat.

Last week, the Leader of the Opposition visited Nauru, but he continues to mislead Australians. He went over there on some false notion of claiming to seek agreement with the Nauru government and to come up with some solution—albeit that he is in opposition—and we know he is misleading Australia on the costs involved and on the suitability of Nauru. Conversely, we have been upfront. We have been upfront about how much the transfer agreements with Malaysia will cost. But Mr Abbott refuses to detail the operational and capital costs required for his Nauru solution. He has spent recent months talking about how Nauru is ready to go and how it could be operational within weeks. But, if the Nauru solution was unsuccessful in the first place, why should we revert to something that did not work? That is the question that needs to be asked here.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It did work, though.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It did not work. We are the progressive party in this case. This once again shows how backward the opposition is. It is backward in its failed solution with Nauru. Are we going to let asylum seekers wait for unknown periods of time to eventually be resettled in Australia? No. We are going to treat them humanely. This still provides an incentive for people smugglers to puts the lives of genuine refugees at risk. By sending asylum seekers to Malaysia, it removes the incentive to get into a boat. It therefore breaks the people smugglers' business model completely and ensures the safety of many refugees who fall prey to human trafficking.

The Malaysian agreement will be cost effective in a way which the Nauru solution cannot. It is obvious the opposition leader has not thought through the Nauru solution. Does he know what will happen to the 400 schoolchildren who would have to be removed from the site if the Nauru solution is adopted? You saw the footage on TV where he was touring an existing school in Nauru. What you do with those 400 children to replace them with refugee housing?

Mr Abbott left the task of serious consideration to the shadow Treasurer, who has stated that the capital costs of the Nauru solution would be $10 million. The opposition claims the Nauru solution is more humane; however, the Pacific solution did not stop boats coming to Australia and it did not break the people-smuggling business model. Do not forget Tony Abbott's shallow slogan 'Stop the boats'. We heard about that in the last election. We know it was a shallow political slogan as a cheap example of political gain.

You need only to speak to our brave men and women of the ADF who serve on the Armidale class patrol boats of the Border Protection Command in Darwin to establish what would happen if you stopped the boats. In June-July last year I was fortunate enough to attend a parliamentary defence program along with two opposition members of parliament. They posed the question to our brave men and women on those Armidale class boats during that program about what would happen if we stopped the boats. Obviously the question was clear. It did not take a rocket scientist to work this out. The response was clear and concise and exactly what I thought it would be. The ADF personnel said, 'If you stop the boats, you will have sabotage—you will have people drilling holes in the hull; you will have people taking to the motors with sledgehammers or whatever mechanism possible to disable that boat and make it unseaworthy.' We all know what would happen in that situation. You would not only have refugees at risk but also have our brave men and women of the ADF at risk trying to rescue those people from a boat that is no longer seaworthy.

We will not forget the 'bat phone', or the 'boat phone' as Mr Tony Abbott called it—'Pick up the phone and ring us if you are in strife.' It brings images to my head that frighten me. I can imagine what it would do to the public to have some guy standing there on the other end of the boat phone in his budgie smugglers talking to some captain out in the middle of the Indian Ocean about some refugees. It would be terrifying to think what sort of response people would be giving in that situation. That is the nonsense that Tony Abbott is coming up with, having boat phones and stopping the boats. It is not a viable situation.

As you can see, Senator Fifield's matter of public importance is simply untrue. The Gillard government is working hard to ensure that effective humane policies are implemented to improve protection for those who genuinely seek asylum. Our Malaysian transfer agreement will see 4,000 genuine refugees settled into Australia over four years and those who are transferred to Malaysia will await the outcomes of their applications. The Malaysian government has guaranteed that those transfers will be taken care of.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before Senator Furner and Senator Carol Brown go, I want them to answer me a question. Since the beginning of this year, a few months ago, there have been 26 boats and 1,548 people come into Australia illegally. Unfortunately, Senator Furner, as is his want, leaves and will not answer the question, so perhaps Senator Carol Brown will. What happens once the Gillard government gets up to that magic number of 800 refugees it is going to send to Malaysia? What happens, if it were this year, to the other 748 people who are not going to be processed in Australia and who are not going to be taken by Malaysia? Can someone please explain to me the Gillard government's solution for the boat people who come here after the 800 people mark is reached?

This is a very serious and very tragic situation, but it is almost humorous to see the head-in-the-sand approach of all of not only the Labor speakers but the Labor ministers and, indeed, the Labor Party. All we have heard this afternoon—and we hear them every day on the TV and on the radio—is, 'We are going to break the people-smuggling business model.' I think Senator Carol Brown mentioned that. I counted it about 11 times in her short address. Senator Furner mentioned those words again four or five times in his contribution. The words are there but they do not mean anything. Can I tell those speakers and the Labor Party generally that the business model was broken by the Howard government. The boats had stopped from a stream to zero. The people-smuggling problem had stopped. There were no more boats coming. There were no more people paying the $15,000.

But suddenly there was a change of government and, with typical Labor inexperience and insensitivity and factional deals, we threw away the Howard govern­ment's rules that had stopped the boats and we allowed in a new regime that just sent the boats flowing one after the other. So for all the things that the Labor Party are now struggling to resolve—running around chasing their tails and trying to find solutions for—there was a solution for them; it had been found. Sure, we went through some difficulties and we had some problems. But we fixed the problem; we stopped the boats. Now you are running around chasing your tails, trying to do exactly the same thing.

I suspect you probably have some people in your government who have some experience with Malaysia and, if you do have any ministers or parliamentarians from Malaysia, perhaps you should ask them what happens to refugees in Malaysia. Indeed, do not take my word on this, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, I refer you to the Refugee Council of Australia. In a report which they gave me, the Refugee and humanitarian program 2011-12, part of the 10-page executive summary said:

A Malaysian NGO representative observed that many refugees who came to Malaysia from elsewhere expected to be treated fairly—

as the Labor government is expecting to happen—

but were shocked by the treatment they received from Malaysian authorities and the limited support given by UNHCR. While most would prefer to remain in Malaysia, after a while they began to consider ways of leaving for countries with higher human rights standards, including Australia.

This report goes on to be critical of the Malaysian situation—and it is from the Refugee Council of Australia. Those comments have been repeated by the UNHCR, and yet this is the country to which the Gillard government is 'humanitarianly' turning in dealing with this particular problem, sending them to a country with a record that has been criticised above the board. I am conscious of deep divisions within the Labor Party. I know that the Left of the Labor Party want to stop this proposal. The Right want to be bolshie because they know the votes they are losing through the incompetence of the Gillard government and its mismanagement.

I take great offence at Senator Carol Brown's comment that the coalition wants to demonise asylum seekers. We have a very humanitarian program for refugees—we always have had—and I take offence at people who say that we do not. But I cannot understand why the Labor Party cannot comprehend that when you accept people—very often wealthy people, people who have not been in these refugee camps for very long, people who have relatives in Australia to provide lots of money—into Australia and class them as refugees, some of the hundreds of thousands of genuine refugees living in squalid camps around the world, waiting for their turn to get into Australia and other places, step back in line because we bring in these other people, these wealthy people very often, who have jumped the queue. Again, quoting the Refugee Council of Australia:

The 13,770 refugee and humanitarian visas issued in 2009-10 were divided between 9,236 offshore refugee and humanitarian visas ... and 4,534 onshore visas ...

The offshore was the lowest number in eight years; the onshore the second-highest. The report continued:

These included 2,156 onshore visas granted to asylum seekers who entered Australia by boat.

Do not take my word that it; listen to the Refugee Council of Australia. When you allow these people in jumping the queue, illegally in this line, you put back the chances of those who are living in squalid camps right around the world, and the Labor Party say that that is a humanitarian resolution for this problem.

The only way to address the problem is to do what we did: learn from our experience and put people in the situation where they will not come. They will not spend the $15,000 because they know they will not be processed in Australia; they will go to a third country like Nauru which is already set up and waiting to deal with those people. That will stop the boats. Nothing the Gillard government does ever will. (Time expired)

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance has concluded.

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

I rise to speak on behalf of Senator Brandis on the Combating the Financing of People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2011. The purpose of the bill is to reduce the risk of money transfers by remittance dealers being used to fund people-smuggling ventures and other serious crimes by introducing a more comprehensive regulatory regime for the remittance sector. The bill also introduces measures to permit the sharing within the Australian intelligence community of financial intelligence prepared by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC, and makes a number of amendments to that effect.

In schedule 1, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 is amended to strengthen the Commonwealth legislative framework on the regulation of remittance dealers and the providers of remittance networks. Schedule 2 amends the same act to expand the list of agencies with which AUSTRAC can share financial intelligence. It enables AUSTRAC to share intelligence with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, the Defence Intelli­gence Organisation, the Defence Signals Directorate and the Office of National Assessments. Schedule 3 amends the same act and the Privacy Act 1988 to enable reporting entities to use credit reporting data to verify the identity of their customers. Schedule 4 amends the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 to enable the CEO of AUSTRAC to exempt a person from one or more provisions of that act. This will allow the CEO to provide regulatory relief in circumstances which otherwise would result in unnecessary or unduly onerous obligations being imposed.

The bill seeks to reduce the risk that remittance dealers will be involved in financing people smuggling, money launder­ing or the financing of terrorist activities. One of the newer and more sophisticated methods of money laundering is the use of bank accounts of unsuspecting third parties. The term used for this practice is an exotic and curious one. It is known as 'cuckoo smurfing'. It was coined by international authorities after the nesting behaviour of the cuckoo bird and the tiny blue figures of a popular Belgian cartoon—of which I have never heard but is apparently well known in Belgium. Birdwatchers have long noted the cuckoo's practice of laying its eggs in the nests of other birds, who then hatch the chicks as their own. Smurfing refers to the division of large sums of criminal money into smaller amounts. 'Cuckoo smurfing' is described in the AUSTRAC Money laundering methodologies report in the following way:

Cuckoo smurfing begins when a legitimate customer deposits funds with an alternative remitter in a foreign country for transfer into another customer's Australian bank account. This is a legitimate activity and is often a cheaper and faster alternative to using a mainstream bank.

Unbeknown to the customer, the alternative remitter is part of a wider criminal syndicate involved in laundering illicit funds. This criminal remitter, while remaining in the foreign country, provides details of the transfers, including the amount of funds, to a criminal based in Australia. This includes the account details of the intended recipient in Australia.

The Australian criminal deposits illicit cash profits from Australian crime syndicates into the bank account of the customer awaiting the overseas transfer.

The cash is usually deposited in small amounts to avoid detection under transaction threshold reporting requirements. After an account balance check, the customer believes that the overseas transfer has been completed as legitimately arranged.

The Australian criminal travels overseas and accesses the legitimate money that was initially deposited with the alternative remitter.

The illicit funds have now been successfully laundered—the criminal owes nothing but a commission to the money launderer for its work.

One other issue worth noting was brought up by the Australian Crime Commission in its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. The ACC stated:

A potential consequence of increased regulation may be where illegitimate remittance providers might become more covert and move into a more unregulated and non-reporting environment than currently exists. This 'black market' would need to be carefully monitored over an extended period of time to identify what, if any, emerging methodologies might be used to facilitate financial crimes including money laundering activities or the financing of people smuggling activities.

That is the effect of this legislation and it is, with respect to that effect, quite supportable. It does need to be recorded, though, that the very title of this bill was a matter of some contention within the Legal and Con­stitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Liberal senators on that committee wrote a minority report and they put the view:

… the title of the Bill does not relate to either its content or intended purpose. While the key measure in the Bill deals with the enhanced regulation of the remittance sector … the title of the Bill focuses only on one aspect of the possible misuse of the remittance sector, namely the financing of people smuggling … The title of the Bill is clearly uninformative and misleading …

Certainly a hard-hitting title like Combating the Financing of People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2011 may well carry that sort of connotation. We are by now, of course, quite accustomed to this govern­ment's commitment to spin and its desperation to be seen to be doing anything on border protection, as we recall from the debate just finished. But apparently, in this case, it cannot even introduce a rather routine update of money-laundering legisla­tion without spinning it into a people-smuggling initiative.

The methods of organised crime are in a state of constant evolution. It is therefore imperative that our front-line agencies are adequately equipped to deal with their increasing sophistication. This is what the bill seeks to achieve and therefore, notwith­standing the rather Orwellian deceit in the bill's short title, it has the support of the coalition.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take a few moments of the Senate's time to highlight the difficulties of the refugee problem around the world and, in passing, repeat how the Gillard government has exacerbated a difficult situation with its mismanagement of the illegal boat arrival situation in recent years. I will not repeat what was said in the previous debate. I think it was clearly demonstrated by the coalition speakers in that debate that the Gillard government is floundering in inconsistency. There is a solution, but unfortunately our Prime Minister is too proud to acknowledge her mistake and to accept the solution that is sitting there staring her in the face. Instead, she struggles around with all of these other crazy schemes, most of which have been determined to be non-goers, as many of us believe the Malaysian situation will be as well, and yet there is a solution there. I do not want to dwell too much on that. This bill does help in some way address the illegal people-smuggling business. For that reason, as my colleague Senator Humphries has said, the coalition will be supporting it.

I do want to point out that, since our nation was first created, Australia has accepted some 750,000 people on refugee and humanitarian bases. The 13,770 refugees and humanitarian visas issued during 2009-10 were divided between 9,236 offshore refugee and humanitarian visas and 4,534 onshore visas, of which the majority were asylum seekers who had entered Australia by boat. Australia received 9.85 per cent of refugees resettled in 2009, but resettlement continues to be a difficult problem. More than half the world's refugees—that is, 5.47 million people—are what the UNHCR classifies as 'protected refugee situations'. Only 24 per cent of the world's refugees are living in camps, with the rest dispersed in often very difficult conditions in urban and rural areas. The 2009 UNHCR statistics record that another 7.95 million people of concern are not in countries of citizenship; they are asylum seekers, stateless people and others in need of protection. Around two-thirds of these people are in Asia; the largest group being stateless people in Thailand, Nepal and Burma.

I only mention these statistics again to say what the underlying principle is. I have to relate that I was at a gathering, a discussion—as were you, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore—put on by the Left Right Think-Tank. They are a group of young, active, forward-thinking, energetic and enthusiastic people—strange name, good people. They had a session in Toowoomba about youth problems. There I met a lady who appeared to me to be of Middle Eastern descent, who said to me, 'Why do you Liberals hate refugees?' I was rather taken aback by that. I explained to her, as I want to explain to the Senate, that we do not hate refugees. We as Liberals have one of the most sensitive, most welcoming refugee and humanitarian policies going. What we do not like is people who are jumping the queue, people who, more often than not, are wealthy. They have to be wealthy or they have to have wealthy contacts to be able to pay the people smugglers the $15,000, or whatever it is, to get them into Australia. When they come in, they take the place of others in the Australian quota that has been set by governments in Australia since time immemorial. So we have these relatively recent, relatively wealthy people—and some may say 'economic refugees'—taking the place of some of the 7.95 million people who are living in absolutely squalid conditions in camps and in other places around the world.

As I said to the Refugee Council: if the argument is whether Australia should take more refugees, let's have that argument. Quite frankly, I for one—I do not talk about anyone else's policy here—would not mind taking more refugees. But they should come through the UNHCR process, not through people who get on a boat, come here and effectively end up staying—and thanks to the Labor Party you can be assured of it. I know a lot of people—relatives of third-generation Italians, people in my home town—who say to me: 'We have a cousin who is skilled and wants to get into Australia but they cannot get in through the migration system. What can you do?' I say to them: 'Give them your tinny, take them offshore, let them come in and they will be accepted under the current government.' I say that partly in jest, but it is partly truthful. It just shows the absolute dysfunctional nature of the current government's situation.

We have a set number of refugees. I do not disagree with the element of the recent arrangements that have increased that by 1,000. That is the Gillard government's assessment; 14,770 is apparently the right number. Perhaps there is a debate to be held about what is the right number. But, whatever it is, it should be filled by people who come through the UNHCR process, people who are genuine refugees and have been so determined by the UNHCR before they set foot in Australia. That is why I am so distressed with the mismanagement and dysfunctional nature of Australia's dealing with the so-called or illegal boat people, people who come to our country illegally at the present time. We have really got to address these issues. We on the coalition side understand that. We are as sympathetic, we are sensitive, we are as humanitarian as any other group of people in Australia, but we want to be fair about it. We do not want those who can jump the queue to push out those who have been waiting in squalor for many years. As I mentioned, I support—as our spokesman Senator Humphries has said—this attempt to further make it more difficult for people smugglers to ply their ugly trade.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the Combating the Financing of People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2011. I thank Senator Humphries and Senator Macdonald for their contributions to this debate and more particularly for their support for this important government legislation. The Australian law enforcement agencies are aware that the international cash transfer services provided by alternative remittance dealers are used by individuals in Australia to pay the organisers of people-smuggling ventures. The bill introduces measures to strengthen existing anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regulation of the alternative remittance sector. These measures are threefold: introducing controls over the registration process, expanding the enforcement options available to AUSTRAC for dealing with noncompliance in the alternative remittance sector and introducing the AML/CTF regulation of providers of remittance networks.

Through two further measures, the bill also introduces reforms that will reduce the compliance burden on businesses regulated by the AML/CTF regime. Firstly, it enables businesses to use credit reporting data to fulfil customer verification obligations and enables the AUSTRAC CEO to grant exemptions from the Financial Transaction Reports Act. The bill also includes measures that will enable AUSTRAC to share financial intelligence more broadly within the Australian intelligence community. This will ensure a more holistic approach to Australia's national intelligence efforts on national security and organised crime issues.

This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to breaking the people-smuggling model and targeting criminal groups which organise, participate in and benefit from people-smuggling activities. The government amendments introduce controls over the information-gathering power set out in the bill to ensure that a person is not subject to this coercive power without proper justification. The amendment that I shall be moving when we go into committee is in keeping with the broad government policy and with the recommendation of the Senate Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 10 May 2011. I move:

(1)   Schedule 1, page 7 (line 20), after item 18, insert:

18A After subsection 49(1)

  Insert:

(1A)   A person (the issuer) must not give a notice under subsection (1) to another person (the recipient) unless the issuer reasonably believes that the recipient has knowledge of the information, or possession or control of the document, that is specified in the notice.

(1B)   The period specified in the notice for giving the information or document must be at least 14 days after the notice is given unless:

(a)   the recipient is the reporting entity who communicated information to the AUSTRAC CEO under section 41, 43 or 45; or

(b)   both of the following apply:

  (i)   the issuer considers that specifying a shorter period is necessary;

  (ii)   the shorter period specified is reasonable in the circumstances.

It is proposed to move two government amendments to address important recommendations made by the Senate Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its report on the bill dated 22 March 2011. The bill amends subsection 49 of the AML/CTF Act to extend the power to obtain further information in relation to the report made to AUSTRAC beyond the reporting entity to any other person. This change to the AML/CTF Act is strongly supported by AUSTRAC and law enforcement agencies, as the extended information-gathering power will assist with preliminary investigations into serious and organised crime.

The first amendment relates to the requirement for reasonable belief. It provides that a notice requesting further information or documents may only be issued if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the recipient has knowledge of the information or possession or control of the document sought. This government amendment will ensure that the person is not subject to this coercive power without proper justification, and it is in keeping with broad government policy and the recommendation of the Senate Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.

The second proposed amendment provides a minimum 14-day compliance period where the recipient of the notice is not the reporting entity who initially communicated the report to AUSTRAC. However, the amendment allows a period of fewer than 14 days where it is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. The Senate Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills queried whether a 14-day period should be applicable, as this is generally considered the minimum time in which the response can reasonably be expected. The proposed amendment addresses this issue and ensures that the minimum time frames are provided in the legislation. The ability to require a shorter time frame recognises that AUSTRAC and law enforcement agencies will often require prompt responses so that they can effectively carry out their investigations.

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

I have to say that I am at something of a disadvantage at this point. I am representing Senator Brandis, who cannot be in the chamber this evening, and I am not aware of any amendments being moved to this bill by the government. The minutes have not been circulated the chamber, at least as far as I can tell, this afternoon—there are none on any of the desks on this side as far as I can see.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Humphries, I am advised that they were circulated earlier today. We are finding another copy.

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

Thank you, Madam Temporary Chair. I am grateful to receive a copy, which I now have. I am prepared to accept the minister's assurance that he has discussed these amendments with my colleague Senator Brandis and that Senator Brandis indicated some measure of agreement with them.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be 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

I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011. The purpose of this bill is to amend provisions within the Social Security Act 1991 that relate to the transitional arrangements that came into effect for parenting payment from 1 July 2006. In practical terms, this bill will limit the ability of parenting payment recipients to extend—and I hesitate to use this word—'grandfathered' eligibility status by acquiring new parenting payment children. I understand now that inclusive language has transformed 'grandfathered' as a term into 'grandparented.'

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that is true, Senator.

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

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. Any subsequent children that come into a parenting payment recipient's care will not be covered by the grandparented provisions. This will mean that all parenting payment recipients will be treated with a degree of equality not available to them previously. I indicate the coalition is not opposed to this bill.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, thank you for your graciousness in allowing me to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill. I will admit I was in the Opposition Whip's rooms with the class of 2004, saying farewell to some of our colleagues. So thank you for holding my spot for me.

People on income support are looking for the best outcomes for their families. The Australian Greens believe that they need encouragement, support and incentives to assist them to find meaningful employment that suits their needs and improves their standard of living. We should be offering as much support as possible. We should particularly help single parents not only to find employment but also to support their children. In most cases, helping people to find employment that they can mix with their child-rearing responsibilities is particularly important.

Many people will know that the Greens opposed the previous government's punitive welfare-to-work provisions. We continue to oppose the welfare-to-work provisions and have been critical of this government because of its continuation of many of these measures and the hardening-up of its punitive approach. Later in this place I will also be talking to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill, which I am equally critical of.

The Greens do not believe that the approach of welfare to work initiated in the Howard era was the appropriate way to go. It included forcing single parents from parenting payment single onto Newstart, hence dropping their income. Statistics show that over 30 per cent of people on parenting payment single are already working and many other people are actively seeking work where they can combine their parenting responsibilities with work. Not only have they been facing many barriers up until recently but also there have been many disincentives to work through the very system itself where the tapering rates have not been an incentive for people to get work.

We are very keen to encourage and support people to undertake further training and education to address Australia's skills crisis and we believe very firmly that support should be given to those on parenting payment single who require support to undertake more training. We acknowledge that the government has moved some way towards this, but we are still critical of its approach. I will be going into that in more detail when we discuss the Family Assis­tance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, for example.

We do not believe there are enough training places or employment assistance to help people that are on income support or to adequately help those that will be pushed onto Newstart through further changes to welfare-to-work provisions. We do not believe there is enough genuine support to help people. We actually think the government is being a bit schizophrenic here. On the one hand, it is investing in some more incentives—and we are supportive of that—but, on the other hand, it is continuing to demonise people and take a punitive approach to those that are on income support. It seems to be an approach whereby the government acknowledge that people need encouragement—they have obviously been reading the papers from the Social Inclusion Board, and I will go into that in a bit more detail—but they cannot help but then try to demonise people by implying that those on income support are there because they are bludgers, with the bad back syndrome et cetera, rather than acknow­ledging that those who remain on income support face real and complex barriers to gaining meaningful employment and attempting to stop the cycling in and out of employment.

The Greens do not support the intent of this bill. We know what the government is trying to do with this bill, but we do not support it. We do not believe that this measure would adequately encourage single parents into employment. It is about cost saving rather than genuinely helping people. Obviously the government is trying to force parents into Newstart earlier, which, of course, we know causes their income to drop. This is the first step in the government's action against those people from the grandfathered group under Welfare to Work. We know that another bill will be introduced, as announced in the budget measures, which, instead of moving people in the grandfathered group from welfare to work, will be aimed at moving people from welfare to work when their child turns 12 rather than when the child turns 16, as is the case now. We have concerns about that and we know that that will result in a loss of $56 per week in income for these people as they move from parenting payment single to Newstart. We have some strong concerns about that.

We know that sole parent families on income support are already among the poorest in the country. A recent OECD report estimates that two-thirds of children whose parents are on the maximum rate of sole parent payments are poor. We believe this budget measure will do nothing more than potentially deepen the impoverishment of this group without any impact on their job prospects. We do not believe that these measures will provide families with a greater degree of financial security, as is claimed by the government; in fact, the only effect will be to make their future less certain. We believe these measures are symptomatic of the continuation of the government's punitive approach to welfare, which is what I was talking about earlier. On the one hand the government are talking about the need for incentives but on the other hand they cannot help but take this punitive approach. We know the punitive approach does not work.

The Greens have stated many times that we do not believe that the Welfare to Work regime, which was introduced by the previous government and continued by this government, is appropriate. We believe it is unfair and does not provide an adequate safety net or properly engage job seekers in securing adequate work. We believe that, if the government is truly committed to breaking the cycle of joblessness and welfare dependency, it must truly address the barriers to employment, not reduce income support and use coercive measures and harsh penalties to force people into the workforce. Again, we are taking a holistic approach here. Across different budget measures and other measures, we know that the government plans to introduce many more bills down the track—indeed, some have already been introduced and some are yet to be introduced—around making life harder for people with disabilities and forcing sole parents onto Newstart.

We believe that measures such as the eligibility criteria for the disability support pension, the failure to index thresholds and the failure to index supplements all have cumulative effects on families. When I asked yesterday at a committee hearing into one of these bills and at Senate estimates whether the government had done any assessment of the cumulative impacts of these measures on families and sole parents, I was told that they have not or that they cannot tell me. I asked two weeks ago and the information was not available. I asked again last night and it still was not available. Who is looking at the cumulative impacts on those people who are doing it hardest in this country?

We believe this approach helps to create a system of even greater inequity for those on income support in Australia. Of course, there is already inequity in the levels of income support that we provide people in the difference between pensions and allowances. In fact, last night we were talking about the fact that the system in Australia is so complex now. There is a 32-page booklet that tries to explain the various payments and allowances in this country. We are extremely concerned that this is a continuation of that approach.

We do not believe it is appropriate for the government to continue to pursue these draconian reform measures, particularly in the absence of evidence that they are effective. I do not believe it has been demonstrated that lower payments and increased activity requirements have resulted in better employment opportunities and outcomes. The government's own evalua­tions show that the result of successive Welfare to Work policies has not been an increase in the number of people with a partial capacity to work moving into the workforce. Fewer than one in five of those diverted to Newstart in 2006-07 obtained employment and left income support during that year. The rest, for the most part, remained on Newstart. In fact, quite a lot of detail concerning the myths associated with those on income support is contained in a recent Australian Council of Social Service report on that topic. We believe those evaluations suggest that increased activity requirements have meant that many recipients are less likely to be able to actively pursue the kinds of activities that would help them to find secure work. That is contained in the Much obliged report. Another report indicates that those individuals with the greatest barriers to employment have felt that the system has been the least helpful. These people have been so engaged in meeting their requirements they have been unable to engage in job search activities. We believe that pushing this line is not always productive. I have said many times in here that that approach, rather than Welfare to Work, rather than genuinely helping people into meaningful employment, is policy as work.

We believe we need to spend our resources on assisting people rather than on further alienating them from the system—providing real incentives instead of moving people from one payment to another. Many people on parenting payment are already in the workforce, working part time—integrating their parenting responsibilities with paid employment. Forcing them out onto Newstart or dropping their payment makes it even harder for them to carry out their parental responsibilities. We do not believe this approach is going to produce the benefits that the government believes it will. I will be talking some more about our concerns with the government's continued approach to income management.

I would like to finish on the work of the Social Inclusion Board, who have done some very good work and released some very good papers on social inclusion that talk about breaking the cycle of disadvantage and addressing issues around long-term joblessness. They talk about how we need to support people using individualised approaches instead of demonising them—that does not work; in fact, it alienates people—how we need to address people's skills and how best to engage with people. For example, many long-term-jobless families are sole-parent families with a child under the age of six. How we engage with those families is particularly important. This dual approach of providing incentives but still demonising people and taking punitive measures is not appropriate.

We will be dealing with the job compliance legislation in this place in less than an hour. That legislation is another demonising approach being taken by the government. Note that, while the government has some skill development measures, we are seeing them try to push fairly quickly through this place legislation that deals with punitive approaches first. We had the inquiry into the family assistance bill yesterday. That bill was only recently released, and the government intends to try to get it through this place by next week. The bill contains the most significant changes to, for example, disability support pension that we have seen in quite a while, but the government has not allowed time for due consideration of the bill and the measures it contains.

The same is happening with this bill seeking to enhance the previous govern­ment's Welfare to Work regime. We believe what the government really needs to do is wind back Welfare to Work, because it is a failed policy, and take a new approach to supporting people on income support, recognising that those people face very significant barriers. We need to take a much more holistic approach to addressing the structural disadvantage and the structural barriers to gaining employment. This measure is one of many that this government is taking.

We opposed Welfare to Work and we oppose this measure because it seeks to impose Welfare to Work on a group of people who were grandfathered from it in 2006. The government is seeking to bring those people out of that grandfathering, as it will be seeking to bring out another lot of people. We do not believe that is approp­riate; we do not believe it is the way to go. We do not support this measure or the other measures the government is talking about in terms of changing the circumstances for those people who were grandfathered from the punitive Welfare to Work approach of 2006.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's Building Australia's Future Workforce reforms represent a long-term investment in the Australian economy through building the education, skills and employment prospects of the Australian workforce. An important part of these reforms is directed toward providing greater incentives for parents, particularly single parents, to engage in the workforce; reducing their reliance on welfare; and providing their family with a better future, underpinned by secure and rewarding employment.

The Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrange­ment) Bill 2011 represents the first stage of the income support payment reforms contained in the Building Australia's Future Workforce package. This bill is a positive step towards reducing the inequity which exists within the legislative structure of the parenting payment.

Under the current arrangements, recipients of parenting payment are treated differently based on when they first applied for parenting payment. This inequity dates back to the 2006 Welfare to Work reforms, which allowed recipients who had applied for payment prior to 1 July 2006 to stay on parenting payment for up to 10 years longer than parents who applied for payment after 1 July 2006. Persons who claimed parenting payment after July 2006 only qualified for parenting payment until their youngest child turned eight if they were single or six if they are a member of a couple. Prior to July 2006, a person could qualify for parenting payment until their youngest child turned 16.

This bill will amend the Social Security Act so that, from 1 July 2011, children coming into the care of an existing parenting payment recipient will no longer extend the duration of a recipient's preferential treat­ment. This will serve to minimise the lingering inequity within parenting payment as a result of the 2006 Welfare to Work reforms. Further changes for parents on income support will take effect from 1 January 2013 and will be included in a separate bill to be introduced later this year.

I want to comment on Senator Siewert's assertion that this bill will demonise parenting payment recipients. I do not accept that assertion in any way, shape or form. The fact is that, despite our growing economy, we are still in a situation where there are 568,000 dependent children in jobless families in this country. This represents a significant social and economic challenge, which we think we need to address. Long periods in receipt of income support are associated with high levels of social and economic disadvantage—I think this is something that Senator Siewert agreed with—often extending to children in these families and to future generations. At a time of increasing national wealth, having the fourth-highest proportion of jobless families in the developed world is simply not acceptable. We cannot afford for these families to be left behind.

We firmly believe that welfare is not the way out of disadvantage for parents and their children. Education and employment are the keys to economic and social inclusion, and we are committed to providing the right balance of support, assistance and incentives to ensure that parents are able to take advantage of the opportunities that our economy has to offer. As part of these reforms, single principal carer parents on Newstart allowance will have a more generous income test which allows them to earn nearly $400 more per fortnight before they lose eligibility for payment. These parents will be able to retain more of their income support as their employment income rises, providing them with an easier transition into the workforce and better rewarding them for their participation.

Further, the income support reforms are complemented by targeted assistance which includes additional training places for single parents, additional community based support for single parents through Communities for Children and access to career counselling through Job Services Australia providers. This additional assistance will be available from 1 July 2012 and will ensure that parents have the support they need to re-engage in work and other activities.

This bill is about fairness and that is why we have introduced it. I thank both Senators Fifield and Siewert for their contributions and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bill to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the minister.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) 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.

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

This bill is important because it seeks to ensure the quality of all Australian higher education providers as the sector embraces a period of very rapid expansion. To that end, this bill will establish the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, or TEQSA for short. In essence, this bill aims to maintain the quality of our higher education sector, Australia's most valuable non-mineral export. Never forget, more overseas students study in Australian universities and other higher education institutions than in any other country on earth as a percentage of our population. It is one of our great national achievements. Meeting the aim of this bill then is critical to our national interest.

For such an important bill, when the initial draft was circulated last year it was substandard. I received many people in my office complaining about the bill. The powers were excessive, draconian and perhaps were not proportionate to the risks involved for different providers and in different contexts. But to the government's significant credit—and here I offer particular congratulations to Minister Evans—it undertook extensive and genuine consul­tation with the higher education sector. The bill was reworked and the legislation was greatly improved and most of its provisions and deficiencies removed. In Professor Greg Craven's words, 'It moved from boilerplate legislation to legislation more fit for purpose'—specific to the higher education sector, rather than off-the-shelf regulation. To give credit where credit is due, the government's approach to this really was model consultation and the government is to be congratulated for its efforts.

The Senate committee inquiry that followed was extremely useful and I thank the chair, Senator Marshall, and also the deputy chair, Senator Back, who were also at public hearings in April in Melbourne. Prior to the inquiry, the coalition held a number of concerns about aspects of the bill, and those were reflected in the eight key recom­mendations in the Senate committee's report. The threshold issue for gaining the coalition support was the recognition of universities' right of self accreditation—that is, the right of universities to accredit the courses they teach without having to seek the approval of government. We also had concerns about the length of time TEQSA had to make decisions. It often takes non-self-accrediting higher education providers 12 months to prepare a course for submission to the regulatory authority, and a further 24-month period would have meant any potential course could have been out of date by the time it was approved. Happily these issues have been resolved in the amendments circulated by the minister. We are heartened that he was able to join the Senate committee in supporting his worthwhile goals, and again to the government's credit they have accepted all of the Senate committee's recommendations and the coalition is now happy to support this bill. However, as this is the first major bill giving effect to a significant element of the new Bradley inspired architecture for our universities, let me take this opportunity to sound some notes of caution relating not so much to the ultimate aims of the Bradley reforms but to their implementation by this government. Implementation has always been the Achilles heel of both the Rudd government and the Gillard government. In the area of education one can name one program after another—Building the Education Revolution, Com­puters in Schools, Fibre Connections to Schools, trade training centres, Indigenous children family centres, Indigenous residen­tial colleges—which read like an encyclopaedia of government failure. This is despite the best and often the most noble of intentions. The most prominent of them, such as the BER, have now become public synonyms for waste, lack of planning, mismanagement and botched imple­mentation.

Part of the problem, in my view, is this government's obsession with metrics. The government will say: 'We need to achieve a one-to-one student computer ratio by the end of 2011.' 'The BER stimulus will be targeted, timely and temporary.' 'The internet connection for laptops will be up to 100 megabits per second.' Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The obsession with metrics comes at the expense of basic work that would make a government program successful. There does not seem to be much planning done after the initial brainwave from the minister's office or the Prime Minister's office. There are no cost-benefit analyses done and no mechanisms are put in place to properly supervise the implementation and oversee the expenditure of taxpayers' money by other parties—and often by state governments. We get the worst of all worlds and, in the end, the metrics are not achieved. Everyone knows that the BER largely did not provide value for money and its implementation is well behind schedule, as is that of Computers in Schools—and God only knows how many years it will take to connect computers to fibre internet.

In addition to the metrics not being achieved, the projects are plagued by a lack of foresight and detailed planning, mismanagement and wasted precious resources. In fact, the two problems are related. It is hard to achieve the metrics when you have not actually thought of what you are trying to do and how you are going to do it. Government senators think I am simply having a free kick at the government, but let me go on.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you are being mischievous and deceitful!

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

Even if they deserve a kick? But that is not my point. These topics have been traversed by me and by Mr Pyne and others over the last few years. I raise these concerns for this reason: I am worried that this government's performance in implementing its schools agenda will affect the grand project of reforming Australia's higher education system—and it is a grand project and a worthwhile one.

The Bradley review has set an ambitious goal of increasing participation in tertiary education to 40 per cent of our young people, a goal which the government has adopted and targeted to achieve by the year 2025. The opposition joins the government in this aspirational target. Indeed, from the start of next year we will see the first substantial steps towards achieving this goal with a move to a system driven by student demand. It is perfectly obvious to everyone in the sector, as well as to any observer, that a significant influx of additional student numbers—it will be tens of thousands and, over the next two decades or so, hundreds of thousands—will necessitate a large expan­sion of our universities' physical and teaching infrastructure. This in turn will require additional government outlays of tens of billions of dollars between now and 2025.

Exactly how much will it require? That is a very, very good question. Sadly, I believe it is not one that the government has answered. It has not really even asked it in the first place. We learnt in the budget estimates a few weeks ago that there is little planning or forecasting and no projections. No cost-benefit analysis at all has been done or even commissioned to be done by the government in relation to the implementation of the Bradley reforms. We as a nation have embarked on one of the largest and most significant reforms of our higher education system in history. Yet we are moving forward largely blind, unaware both of the cost that taxpayers will have to incur over the next decade and a half to make the reforms happen as well as the benefits that we would expect to accrue to our economy and society as a result of having a more educated Australian population. Once again, the government is being completely blinded by the metric of 40 per cent of 20- to 34-year-olds having a bachelor's degree or more by 2025, ignoring all the careful planning that has to be done as a foundation of successful implementation.

Let me just say this: the coalition will not support a blind and uninformed rush towards arbitrary targets if it would in any way damage our higher education system and affect its performance and international reputation. We cannot allow a situation to develop where quantity is achieved at the expense of quality. The high standards of our universities cannot be compromised simply because the government wants to meet a metric without providing adequate resources. It will actually be a step backwards if we produce more degrees and they are worth less simply because our universities are not able to maintain quality within the constraints of government targets and government financing.

This point was clearly underlined in an April report from the New York based Institute of International Education which looked at the reasons behind the decline in overseas student enrolments here in Australia. It was discussed in the 'Higher Education Supplement'of the Australian just yesterday. There is international concern that standards in Australian universities are not as high as our competitors. I know Senator Evans and others in the government would be concerned with that. The coalition is concerned about the implementation of the Bradley reforms by the government. We will be watching carefully how the reform unfolds. We put the government on notice that aspirations, however high and noble, count for little if they are not implemented in a well thought out and properly financed manner.

In conclusion, the coalition is happy to support this bill in its current form, as amended, and commends the government for adopting all the recommendations of the Senate legislation committee. It has been a good decision by the government and is again illustrative of the fact that the government and Senator Evans have gone a long way towards improving this legislation and listening to the higher education sector in the consultation process and the com­mittee process. I again thank Senator Evans and, indeed, the department for that consultation process, which I did describe as 'model'. If only that were the case in relation to all legislation, that would be a great thing, but perhaps it is too much to ask for. I commend the bill to the Senate and indicate that the opposition will support the amendments that have been circulated by the government.

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

I thank Senator Mason for his contribution and acknowledge that Senator Hanson-Young is unable to speak because she cannot make it to the chamber at the moment but is also supportive of the legislation. I thank Senator Mason for the last three or four minutes of his speech—and I will not rise to the challenge of the rest of the speech, which was inflammatory and not particularly to the point! I think that reflected the fact that, being in screaming agreement on the bill, he had to talk about something else for the first 15 minutes. I acknowledge the constructive contribution he has made to the development of this legislation and I appreciate his cooperation in bringing it before the parliament and, hopefully, having it carried today.

Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency Bill 2011.

Leave granted.

The bill before the chamber establishes the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, known as TEQSA, as a single national regulator and quality assurance agency for Australia's higher education sector. The establishment of TEQSA is a key reform of this government's productivity and participation agenda. It forms part of the package of reforms announced in the 2009-10 budget in response to the 2008 Bradley review of higher education. The reforms bring about significant changes to the current landscape of Australian higher education—ones that unfortunately have not been as well recognised or discussed as should have been the case.

In achieving our ambitious targets for higher education attainment, we have introduced demand-driven funding for undergraduate places at public universities from 2012. This is a far-reaching and fundamental economic reform that will transform the scale, potential and quality of our universities and open the doors of higher education to a new generation of Australians. In what will be a period of rapid growth in enrolments in higher education, we need to be confident, however, that our students are receiving quality education—a point that Senator Mason made in his contribution.

TEQSA will play a central role in ensuring the overall quality of our higher education system. It will use a standards based approach to regulation, which will require providers to meet or exceed threshold standards in order to be registered and deliver higher education in Australia. It will place the current state and territory based systems for registration and course accreditation and quality assurance arrange­ments currently undertaken by the Australian Universities Quality Agency. This will reduce from nine to one the number of federal, state and territory regulatory and quality assurance bodies. As highlighted during the Senate inquiry into the bills, maintaining nine different regulatory and quality assurance bodies is inherently inefficient and places a burden on the higher education sector.

TEQSA's regulatory approach will be risk based and proportionate. At all times it must adhere to the basic principles of regulation which are embedded in the bills. These principles—regulatory necessity, reflecting risk and proportionate regulation—will ensure TEQSA takes into account the scale, mission and history of each provider when undertaking its regulatory functions. Where poor quality is identified, TEQSA will intervene with an escalating series of responses in accordance with the principles. The action TEQSA will take will depend on the risk of the provider and the seriousness of the contravention.

I think our experience in the international education market in the last few years has taught us the importance of the need for this sort of regulation and also the need to take a risk based approach to the providers. Given the importance of TEQSA for the future of Australia's higher education system, the government has actively engaged with the higher education sector in developing the TEQSA. Their cooperation and engagement has been of the first order and I thank them for that. I express my appreciation to Universities Australia, the Council of Private Higher Education, TAFE Directors Aust­ralia, the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, the National Tertiary Education Union, the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations and the National Union of Students for their contributions. It really has been a strong and collaborative effort.

I acknowledge the work of the senators who participated in the inquiry into the bill and I appreciate the work that they did. I would also like to commend the work of the key officials in my department who steered the development of the TEQSA legislation and did the hard work of delivering an outcome in which the higher education sector has confidence. In particular, I thank Lisa Schofield and David Hazelhurst, who I know have worked very hard to get the result—probably beyond the call of duty. We appreciate that effort.

The establishment of TEQSA is a critical step towards ensuring that the expansion and diversification of Australia's higher education sector does not come at the expense of quality. The introduction of a national system of regulation will provide for greater consistency and improved quality across the sector. It will provide a safeguard that our students are receiving a quality education. It reflects this government's continued commitment to creating a world-class higher education system which is diverse, innovative and responsive to the needs of students.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

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

I table two supplementary explana­tory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to these bills. The memoranda were circulated in the chamber earlier today. I seek leave to move government amendments to both the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Bill 2011 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011 together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (20) on sheet CJ204 and government amendments (1) to (9) on sheet CJ205 together:

(1)   Clause 4, page 5 (line 6), after "regulated higher education awards.", insert "Some providers (including Australian universities registered in the Australian university provider category) are authorised to self-accredit their courses of study.".

(2)   Clause 4, page 5 (lines 9 to 11), omit "TEQSA is also responsible for ensuring that higher education provided in Australia, or by Australian providers, meets the Higher Education Standards Framework.", substitute "TEQSA regulates higher education using principles relating to regulatory necessity, risk and proportionality, and using a standards-based quality framework.".

(3)   Clause 4, page 5 (line 12), omit "That Framework", substitute "That quality framework".

(4)   Clause 5, page 11 (line 2), omit "58(1)(e) or (h)", substitute "58(1)(h)".

(5)   Clause 5, page 15 (line 8), omit "Standards;", substitute "Standards.".

(6)   Clause 5, page 15 (line 9), omit paragraph (c).

(7)   Clause 21, page 23 (line 1), omit "12 months", substitute "9 months".

(8)   Clause 21, page 23 (line 11), omit "12 months", substitute "9 months".

(9)   Heading to clause 33, page 28 (line 19), omit the heading, substitute:

  33 Conditions about authority to self-accredit

     TEQSA to consult about such conditions

(10)   Clause 33, page 28 (line 20), omit "This section", substitute "Subsection(2)".

(11)   Clause 33, page 29 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add:

        Consequences for accreditation if authority removed

     (4)   If:

        (a)   a course of study is accredited by a registered higher education provider; and

        (b)   a condition imposed under subsection 32(1) removes the provider's authority to self-accredit the course of study;

     the accreditation is cancelled when that removal takes effect.

     Note:   The provider may apply to TEQSA for TEQSA to accredit the course of study under Part 4.

(12)   Heading to Division 1, page 36 (line 2), omit the heading, substitute:

   Division 1—Accrediting courses of study

(13)   Clause 45, page 36 (lines 3 to 6), omit the clause, substitute:

  45 Who can accredit courses of study

Australian universities can self-accredit courses of study

(1)   Each registered higher education provider that:

(a)   is registered in the Australian university provider category; and

(b)   is:

(i)   established by or under, or recognised by, a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or

(ii)   registered as a company under Part 2A.2 of the Corporations Act 2001;

is authorised to self-accredit each course of study that leads to a higher education award that it offers or confers.

(2)   However, this authority is subject to section 32 (about imposing conditions on a provider's registration).

Note:   TEQSA may impose a condition restricting or removing the provider's authority to self-accredit. TEQSA will need to consult (see section 33) and comply with the principles in Part 2 before doing so.

(3)   Subsection (1) does not limit the registered higher education providers that may be authorised to self-accredit one or more courses of study.

TEQSA can accredit courses of study

(4)   Divisions 2 to 4 of this Part apply to a registered higher education provider in relation to a course of study if the provider is not authorised to self-accredit the course of study.

(14)    Clause 49, page 38 (line 11), omit "12 months", substitute "9 months".

(15)    Clause 49, page 38 (line 21), omit "12 months", substitute "9 months".

(16)    Clause 58, page 44 (lines 12 and 13), omit paragraph (1)(e).

(17)    Clause 58, page 44 (line 19), omit "(a) to (e)", substitute "(a) to (d)".

(18)    Clause 167, page 115 (lines 13 and 14), omit paragraph (2)(a), substitute:

(a)   ensure the Panel members collectively possess an appropriate balance of professional knowledge and demonstrated expertise, including in higher education and the development of quality standards; and

(19)    Clause 167, page 115 (after line 18), at the end of paragraph (2)(b), add:

(iii)   the staff of higher education providers; and

(20)    Clause 183, page 123 (table item dealing with decisions under section 38), omit "to refuse".

Tertiary Education Quality And Standards Agency (Consequential Amendments And Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011

(1)   Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 20) to page 6 (line 8), omit section 7A, substitute:

7A Meaning of designated authority

(1)   The designated authority for a State, in relation to a provider, is as follows:

(2)   However, if the provider is covered by more than one item of the table, the Minister may, by legislative instrument:

(a)   determine that one or more entities are the designated authorities for the State in relation to the provider; and

(b)   specify the circumstances in which each of those entities is the designated authority for the State in relation to the provider.

(3)   The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine an entity to be the designated authority for a State in relation to a provider covered by table item 3.

(2)   Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (line 28), omit "subsection 7A(4)", substitute "subsection 7A(3)".

(3)   Schedule 2, item 8, page 18 (line 22), omit "from *TEQSA", substitute "conferred by or under the *TEQSA Act".

(4)   Schedule 2, item 14, page 19 (line 23), omit "by *TEQSA", substitute "by or under the *TEQSA Act".

(5)   Schedule 2, item 23, page 21 (lines 7 and 8), omit "by *TEQSA", substitute "by or under the *TEQSA Act".

(6)   Schedule 2, item 28, page 22 (line 12), omit "from *TEQSA", substitute "conferred by or under the *TEQSA Act".

(7)   Schedule 2, item 33, page 23 (line 1), omit "by *TEQSA", substitute "by or under the *TEQSA Act".

(8)   Schedule 3, item 15, page 39 (table item 2), omit "12 months", substitute "9 months".

(9)   Schedule 3, item 25, page 47 (table item 2), omit "12 months", substitute "9 months".

These amendments respond to the recommendations of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee on the TEQSA bills. The report delivered by the committee supported the government's establishment of TEQSA as a key step towards ensuring that the expansion and diversification of the sector does not come at the expense of quality. Reflecting the committee's recom­mendations, the amendments will ensure that the creation of the new regulatory environ­ment for the Australian higher education system through the establishment of TEQSA is underpinned by a robust regulatory framework with a strong focus on quality.

The government amendments will explicitly provide that universities have the authority to self-accredit courses of study except where TEQSA limits or removes that authority consistent with the basic principles of the regulation stated in part 2 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Bill 2011. These provisions recog­nise that universities are axiomatically self-accrediting, preserving their academic independence and diversity. I know this pro­vision is very important to the universities. The government and the opposition are happy to support its establishment within the legislation. The bill will also be amended so that the minister must have regard to the interests of staff working in the higher education sector, as well as the interests of students and the states and territories, when determining the appointment of members of the Higher Education Standards Panel.

In response to a recommendation of the committee, the amendments will change the maximum statutory time frame for TEQSA to make a decision regarding an applicant's application for registration and course accreditation. This has been reduced to a maximum of 18 months. TEQSA's decision to change a provider's registration category has also been amended so that it is a reviewable decision.

I would like to take this opportunity to again thank the Senate committee for its work, particularly the chair, Senator Gavin Marshall, who, as always, conducted the inquiry with professionalism and consideration of the interests of all senators. Of course, I acknowledge Senator Mason's constructive role in the work of the committee and also the work of the Greens and Senator Hanson-Young in ensuring we have an outcome that can get the support of the Senate. I think it reflects strong policy. Additionally, I would like to thank all the stakeholders who contributed to the committee's inquiry and report.

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

As I said in my contribution in the second reading debate, the coalition supports these amendments and congratulates the minister on his insight and common sense.

Question agreed to.

Bills, as amended, agreed to.

Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.

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

I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

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

The Senate is considering the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2011. I will give some quick facts to contextualise that with which we are dealing. Job seeker income support for 2011-12 is estimated to cost taxpayers $7.2 billion, whilst the disability support pension is expected to cost a further $13.4 billion. Unemployment in Australia is currently at the seasonally adjusted rate of 4.9 per cent—that was as at March 2011, and I do not think the figure has changed. In the last 12 months, approximately two million job interviews, activities or provider appointments were missed by job seekers with no valid excuse given. They are the facts with which I seek to contextualise the debate we are having in relation to this job seeker compliance amendment bill. The Rudd government, reminiscent of its border protection policy, sought to water down the mutual obligation scheme that the Howard government had set in place. They did so in 2008. Labor at that time introduced their so-called 'no show no pay' compliance model. However, the high rate of missed appoint­ments is a clear indication of the failure of Labor's compliance regime, which did not provide sufficient disincentive for many. This bill seeks to redress Labor's own amendments and introduces a tougher compliance regime for job seekers who have activity test requirements.

The bill proposes to suspend income support payments for job seekers who fail to attend an appointment or an activity like Work for the Dole without a reasonable excuse given in advance. When a job seeker does attend a rescheduled appointment that payment will be reinstated with back pay. If a job seeker fails to attend the rescheduled meeting and fails to provide an adequate excuse then payment will be suspended until they do attend an appointment and no back pay will be payable for this period. Reasonable excuse provisions will also be tightened so that, even if a job seeker has a reasonable excuse on the day for not attending an appointment or activity, it will not be accepted if they could have given advance notice that they could not attend but did not do so.

It is critical that job seekers are encouraged to actively seek employment in order to break the cycle of welfare dependency. The coalition maintains that those in receipt of unemployment benefits must recognise that they have a subsequent responsibility to look for work and contribute back to the society that supports them. The coalition requires a firm but fair system to ensure that those in receipt of income support who can work recognise that welfare is a temporary safety net and not a hammock or a lifestyle choice.

I simply make this observation in concluding that this is very reminiscent of Labor's border protection policies. The Howard government had a good regime in place; Labor could not recognise how good it was, so they busily set about dismantling it. Then they were confronted with the consequences of that and as a result they are now seeking to rush through changes to tighten up the scheme. The coalition welcomes the bill and acknowledges that the bill is needed but we do say the chances are that, if Labor had not meddled in the first place in 2008, we would not be here with these further amendments. The coalition will be supporting the bill.

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

The Greens do not support the punitive approaches and policies of the previous government that this government seeks to continue. We believe that such policies attempt to penalise job seekers rather than offering them the vital support needed to overcome the many and complex barriers they face in finding employment. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2011 that we are debating today does not supply or provide support to these people but rather undermines positive changes made to the system three years ago and drags us back to the ineffective and damaging system that existed in the Howard years.

It hardly seems appropriate to increase punitive compliance measures when the minister has admitted that most job seekers are genuine in their attempts to find work. Furthermore, information submitted as part of the House of Representatives inquiry confirmed that there is little evidence of deliberate non-attendance of appointments. It is likely to be the most disadvantaged people—those facing chronic homelessness or complex and chronic illness, particularly mental illness, or those with poor literacy and education—who will be most affected by this bill while those who simply choose to rort the system will follow the new requirements or find other ways to circum­vent those requirements. This bill does nothing more than expend considerable time and resources in actions that will not solve the problem but will hurt the very people that the government claims it is trying to help.

It says a lot that many of those working at the coalface assisting the unemployed strongly oppose this bill. I quote here from the evidence given at the House of Representatives inquiry by a representative of the not-for-profit job service providers. They said:

… we are keenly aware of the impact of financial penalties on people living on Newstart the single rate of which is $239 a week. We look with great trepidation at the prospect of further penalties being applied to these people in terms of what might happen to those citizens. First and foremost, they are citizens. They tend to be referred to in the system as job seekers, but they are citizens and many of them are living in poverty.

I would actually say there that, if you are living on Newstart, you are living in poverty. Even the chair of the independent review of social security measures, on whose report the government is relying, came before the House of Representatives inquiry and opposed this bill. With both independent experts and those working most closely on this issue standing in opposition to this bill, we think it is bizarre that this bill should proceed.

What is even more bizarre and absurd is that the government offers little evidence for the effectiveness of this approach. Yes, it is well known that there are high rates of non-attendance for appointments and this is a great impediment to getting people into the workforce, but the government offers no research or explanation as to why people are missing these appointments. Equally, there is little evidence to suggest that such punitive compliance measures will actually work. The department has not been able to produce data on why people miss appointments in circum­stances which under this bill would attract sanctions. The Greens find it shocking that no such data exists, given the consequences for vulnerable Australians if this bill goes ahead, and again it is the most vulnerable who are going to be hit by the sanctions.

It is essential that we understand why people are missing their appointments and design solutions that address these reasons. This is what we call evidence based policy. We believe that we need to understand why people miss appointments. We believe that it is not just, as the government and opposition would have us believe, sheer wilfulness. That is not the case. We believe that the government is putting the cart before the horse, rushing to this punitive approach rather than understanding what we need to do to help the most vulnerable Australians. Young people and Indigenous people together make up almost 70 per cent of the appointments missed. It is these groups who will be affected most negatively if this bill proceeds, yet no-one from the government has explained why this is the case and why this approach is justified when this approach will impact most on these two most vulnerable groups.

We know from previous noncompliance measures that the most severely affected were, in fact, Aboriginal Australians. I know that because I was the one in estimates asking for the data on noncompliance when the welfare to work measures were first brought in. And guess what: exactly what we thought would happen happened—that is, Aboriginal Australians, particularly in my home state of Western Australia and the Northern Territory, were those who were subject to noncompliance measures and to the eight-week rolling breaches and who then fell out of the system. My concern is that we are about to repeat these mistakes.

Evidence given at the most recent inquiry offers many reasons for job seekers missing appointments or disengaging with the system. These include the complexity of the system, lack of easy-to-understand informa­tion about their requirements, a need to build trust between job seekers and their providers and the fact that the system is not meeting their needs. If a House of Representatives inquiry can find this out, surely there can be a more comprehensive approach to finding this data.

Many job seekers find the system to be confusing and bewildering. How will punishing job seekers address any of these underlying problems and increase attendance at appointments? Evidence in fact suggests that such measures could lead to further distrust and disengagement, which is exactly what happened last time a government—the Howard government—tried these measures: further disengagement and further alienation. I fail to see how that helps people to get a job. It is clear to us that what the detrimental effects of this bill will be on the unemployed and particularly on the most vulnerable job seekers—those who face the most barriers to employment. We believe that these negative impacts outweigh any potential positive benefits.

I would like to quote from the ACOSS—the Australian Council of Social Services—evidence to the inquiry:

People living on $237 a week do have difficulty with the bill payments, including rent payments, and often have to leave them until the last moment and so, as a consequence of suspension of payments, they could be behind with their account and they could be penalised financially for that, or potentially lose their accommodation if they have been late in the past. We are certainly concerned there will be an increased reliance, an increased call on emergency relief services as a result of that.

ACOSS also points out in its testimony that this bill will potentially lead to an increase in eight-week non-payment penalties, and this is, understandably, a grave problem for us. We have consistently opposed the use of these punitive non-payment penalties.

It is all very well to say that you will get back pay, but people cannot afford the expenses on a day-to-day basis, let alone, 'You will get it back later, maybe—if you re-engage.' But by then they may have already lost their accommodation and they may have already had their power turned off, because people—as ACOSS pointed out—juggle their payments just to survive. They cannot afford to lose any of their income.

We believe that the government does need to look at how it can help. This is an issue: we agree with that. But just putting in place further penalties for noncompliance is not going to solve it. Dealing with those barriers that we mentioned earlier is the way to address it. We believe that statistics collected on the number of missed appointments have not changed dramatically in a number of years. Figures were no different under the harsher regime of the Howard government. Past experience indicates that suspension and non-payment penalties do not seem to increase meaningful engagement with the system.

What we need is much more systematic reform of the social security system, including the compliance regime. We need a system that truly addresses the needs of the most vulnerable job seekers and treats them with more dignity and compassion. We believe that the government should listen to the organisations and people providing services to the unemployed, rather than continuing to demonise and sanction people in very difficult circumstances.

We believe that, in fact, the government could do a lot better than this particular piece of legislation. I remind the government about a report that they commissioned into the compliance system in 2008, partly as a result of the pushing that the Greens did at the time. This review was undertaken by a panel of experts led by Professor Julian Disney, who is no stranger to many people in this place—we are aware of the work he has done over the years. This report made many important recommendations, and yet we do not believe that there has been a serious attempt to implement or to respond to many of these significant recommendations.

The recommendations point to serious flaws in the compliance system, and here are some of the important recommendations—I know my colleague in the House of Representatives reminded that House. The report calls for the simplification of documentation relating to compliance, with the aim of substantially reducing the number, length and complexity of documents. The report called for increased training to providers' staff, especially related to the submission of participation reports, responding to the outcome of those reports and engaging with highly vulnerable job seekers. It also recommended improved processes for interaction with providers and those who work on policy and imple­mentation issues. Finally, it also recom­mended that a special case conference be held if someone has had five participation reports, whether they are upheld or not. The purpose of the case conference is to assess whether the individual needs further assistance to achieve compliance or should be subject to different participation requirements.

We believe these recommendations are vital to ensure that the system is accessible, particularly to those most vulnerable, and that staff fully understand both the punitive measures—before they use them—and the distinctions made between those people who are choosing to rort the system and those who are simply overwhelmed by its com­plexity and unable to engage properly due to those multiple barriers that I have already outlined. We believe the government must deal with these problems in the system before stronger and more punitive com­pliance measures should or can be put in place or are in fact justified.

We do not support this bill. My colleague in the lower House, Mr Bandt, clearly outlined our opposition to and our concerns with this bill, particularly in his dissenting report to the committee. We call on the government to respond to the independent review of the job seeker compliance system as a matter of urgency. In fact, I think it is outrageous that they have brought this bill on before responding to those very sensible recommendations, and we call on them to implement those recommendations as a matter of urgency. In particular, we need plain-language redrafting of all measures associated with job seeker compliance. As I said in the chamber not long ago, the complexity of this system and the booklet outlining various systems and payments must be a signal to people about how complex this particular system is.

We have talked many times about the barriers to employment in this place. If we are genuinely about helping, not demonising, people on income support, we need to be addressing those barriers rather than just keeping reinventing the wheel. The com­pliance system did not work under the previous government. There is no reason at all to believe that it is going to work under this government when those barriers to compliance and to gaining employment, are still in place. Fix those; do not just go for cranking up the compliance system, demonising and penalising people even more. When you apply those penalties, people face further barriers and are further entrenched in poverty. Please see sense. Get rid of this bill and implement those recom­mendations. Then we may see some genuine effort and genuine change in the way people can engage with this system.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all senators who have contributed to the debate. This legislation delivers on the government's election commitment to modernise Aust­ralia's welfare system and introduce measures to ensure that more unemployed people are getting back into work. As we know, we have a growing economy and a strong labour market. While millions of jobs have been lost in other advanced economies, employment in Australia has increased by about 750,000 jobs since 2007. At just 4.9 per cent, Australia's unemployment rate is lower than those of almost all of the other major advanced economies. It is at this time, with lower unemployment and employers searching for new workers, that we must embrace the greater opportunities to connect job seekers with this employment market.

In the 2011 budget our government allocated $8.5 billion for spending over the forward estimates toward employment services. This includes spending on a range of new initiatives to provide greater support for the very long-term unemployed, for job seekers with a disability and for those who have become disengaged. With this increased support and with the opportunities that our economy provides, so too comes responsibility. It is crucial that we do all that we can to ensure that unemployment pay­ment recipients are participating to the full extent of their abilities. In order to do that, we need them to be actively engaged with the employment services and support that our government provides. These measures are not about punishing job seekers who have a valid reason for missing appointments or not participating in activities. The gov­ernment is very aware of the challenges that job seekers face, and we are aware that most job seekers are genuine in their attempts to find work. However, income support does come with a responsibility.

A strengthening of the compliance system is warranted so that more job seekers are actively engaged in work experience activities such as training and Work for the Dole so that they are getting the skills and experience they need to find a suitable job into the future. The new arrangements seek to improve job seekers' attendance at employment service providers and related appointments. Suspension of payment provides a strong and immediate incentive for job seekers who miss appointments to re-engage quickly. When a job seeker's payment is suspended following a missed appointment, they get all of their money back once they do what is required of them—that is, once they agree to attend the appointment. This is an effective way of encouraging compliance without taking the punitive approach of immediately applying a penalty that the job seeker cannot get back. The principle that no job seeker should actually lose payment without a warning or a second chance to comply will remain in place. The current range of legislative and administrative protections for vulnerable job seekers will also remain in place, with the additional provision that they will not be subject to suspension of payment in the first instance.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment has scrutinised this bill, and on 11 May it tabled its report. On the same day, the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare, the Hon. Kate Ellis, gave in-principle support to the committee's recom­mendations and indicated that the gov­ernment would give serious consideration to all of them. With the support of the opposition, the government has accepted the committee's recommendation to remove the word 'special' from subsection 42UA where it is used to describe a situation in which a job seeker would not be expected to give prior notice of their inability to attend an appointment. The government has now given more detailed consideration to the rest of the committee's recommendations. Several recommendations related to the need for clear communication for job seekers and clear guidance and training for employment service providers and Centrelink staff. Those recommendations have been adhered to in the development of the communication material, the guidelines and the training materials for these policy changes. Further, the department has advised that implementation is progressing on all of the remaining recommendations.

While it made no specific recom­mendations in this regard, the committee also suggested that it would be valuable for the government to provide a response to the remainder of the Independent Review of the Job Seeker Compliance Framework, the Disney review. The measures relating to the job seeker compliance framework, which were announced in the budget the night before the committee's report was tabled, were developed following consideration of the recommendation for the Disney review. The budget included $49.8 million to improve and streamline the compliance system, to provide targeted assistance to those job seekers who are most at risk of noncompliance and disengagement and to improve communication between Centrelink and providers. These budget measures and this bill are consistent with the government's approach to job seeker compliance, which focuses on early intervention and the use of immediate corrective action to keep job seekers on the right path. They will benefit job seekers, especially those who are vulnerable or disengaged. These measures will also help providers by reducing complexity and increasing transparency. All Australians on income support should have the opportunity of work, but with this opportunity, of course, comes responsibilities. With this bill we are going to firmly expect that people meet those responsibilities. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bill to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the minister.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) 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.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact that the Midwife Professional Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 is being considered by the Senate is proof yet again that this government cannot get anything right. The Minister for Health and Ageing tried to blame the opposition for the troubles that she has had with the midwives and nurse practitioners bill and the midwife and professional indemnity bills through 2009 and 2010, but it was all her fault. She also tried to blame the Senate for delays in the legislation passing through the parliament, but it was the minister and the government that rushed legislation into parliament without taking the time to dot the i's and cross the t's. Through the process Minister Roxon had to admit that she had got it wrong and she had to backtrack. Perhaps she can use the lessons learnt to backtrack on asking tobacco companies for money—or will she blame someone else for that as well?

This week, of course, represented an all-time low for Ms Roxon. Her sanctimonious prosecution of the nanny state has highlighted her sheer hypocrisy over her solicitation of donations from big tobacco. Minister Roxon sought financial support even though her party had publicly declared it would not accept funds from big tobacco. It was interesting that in the other place the government refused to debate an opposition motion that the minister explain to parlia­ment why she publicly criticised tobacco company donations to political parties but privately sought their financial support. What does she have to hide? But I digress.

I go back to the legislation. Minister Roxon had to placate the concerned stakeholders. She had to clarify matters to a Senate committee, and then the minister had to make amendments. Then, after the legislation took effect from July last year, the minister was forced to make new rules to cover the problems that this bill now seeks to remedy. And what were those problems? The drafting of the original legislation excluded one group of midwives from accessing the indemnity contribution scheme. The legisla­tion treated those who operated their own companies and were self-employed the same as it treated those employed by large organisations such as hospitals or medical practices. The legislation had excluded employed midwives from the scheme. The government present this as an oversight. It was not the government's original intention, they say, and this bill to remedy the situation is presented as a technical fix for a minor element of the act. What it is, though, is another error on the part of the government and of this minister.

The second mistake is what the government has described as a 'typographical error'. What was the definition? What, effectively, the original legislation did was enshrine in law a formula to tax insurers of midwives at a rate far higher than the premium income those insurers received from the midwives for their insurance coverage. That is some typo. It is also typical of a government that continually talks about grandiose schemes and ambitions but then completely fails to do the hard yards to get the detail right.

Health is rich with failures. We have had the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and Minister Roxon in scrubs, going to fix public hospitals by mid-2009. Minister Rudd—then Prime Minister Rudd—was going to take over the nation's public hospitals. By mid-2009, all we had was a series of reports from the multitude of committees, commissions, working groups and inquiries that the Rudd Labor government had commissioned. All we had by 2010 was a hastily thrown together plan branded the 'national health and hospitals reform' so that the Rudd-Gillard government could look like it was actually doing something to honour those commitments made to Australians in mid-2007. This reform consisted of media releases, conferences and communiques but no actual reform. Prime Minister Gillard's health reforms have excluded mental health and aged care. They are not reforms at all but are an agreement to have an agreement. How agreeable!

GP superclinics are supercopies of existing general practices except that they use taxpayers' money to set up a practice in opposition to a practice which has been established through private investment. It is completely offensive not just to the doctors and nurses who are involved but to patients as well. To make it worse, the government has decided that it will proffer preferential treatment in terms of the doctors—and, presumably, nurses in some cases as well—at these superclinics, which puts them at a competitive advantage over those practices which operate with the costs of capital being deployed into these centres. It is untenable that this situation continues. Minister Roxon promised more than 60 of these so-called superclinics. We know that just 10 of these clinics have opened across the country five years after they were promised and completely and utterly over budget. Nothing this government touches does anything but turn to dust. The health portfolio contains one classic example after another of why Labor just cannot be trusted with the sort of legislation that is before the Senate today or, indeed, the general health program.

Of course, the biggest failure of this government is in its mental health announcement: $2.2 billion over five years boils down to $583 million over the next four years with only $47 million spent in the first year. No wonder people are starting to realise that they have been duped by a big dose of spin. There will be money in the fifth year. Oh wait! That is the third year of the next term of government. Prime Minister Gillard's fantasy is that she will be around long enough to implement the fifth year of a mental health strategy. What nonsense.

This is a government that promises big but delivers nothing. Midwives do not have that luxury. They do one of the most important jobs in the human condition of guiding new life into the world, but this government has treated these hardworking women and men with utter contempt. The Australian taxpayers are also being treated with utter contempt. Lack of attention to detail is not justifiable. The sooner this government is put out of its misery the better off we will all be.

The coalition supported the original tranche of legislation in this area. We provided constructive input to the government. We warned them of some of the likely failings. Some of those failings have come to pass. They talk about typographical errors which, in effect, make the premium completely above and beyond what anybody could be expected to pay. Nobody in certain employment circumstances could practise reasonably as a result of this legislation. As I said, we flagged the fact that this government would get yet another bill wrong. They did not let us down. Certainly they have let the Australian people down.

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

The Midwife Professional Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 has received a great deal of attention. Debating issues around better support for midwives has taken a great deal of the time of many senators. While the Greens were supportive of many of the measures the government introduced last year, we also flagged our concerns about some of the measures that were put in place, such as collaborative arrangements and the impact that the changes would have on those midwives wanting to support homebirth and also on mothers and families wanting homebirth.

I am aware of some of the concerns of midwives who are operating under the current system. I thought it was timely that I raise some of these issues, given that there will need to be some more changes by around this time next year when the homebirth exemptions expire. In other words, we need to start thinking about how we are going to deal with that now. Unfortunately, some of the concerns that the midwives raised at the Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry and with individual senators appear to have been substantiated by events. For example, I am told at the moment there are approximately 50 eligible midwives under collaborative arrangements. To date, none has been able to provide continuity of care through labour and birth because they do not have visiting access to hospitals. While it looks like there are around 700 claims through Medicare, none of these is for birth care because of the lack of visiting access. That is a very strong concern.

The determination around collaborative arrangements specifies that midwives have to demonstrate collaborative arrangements in one of four ways: being employed by a practice with an obstetrician, being referred by a specified medical practitioner, having a signed collaborative arrangement with a specified practitioner or having an acknowledgement of a collaborative arrange­ment from a specified medical practitioner. At this stage these are the only ways women can gain a Medicare rebate for midwifery care. Five midwives in Sydney are reported to have a signed collaborative arrangement in place. As far as we are aware, no-one else has a signed agreement. We understand that there are two practices that are using the employment mechanism. One midwife is employed by an obstetrician and two others are employed in an Aboriginal medical service. I have been told the rest of the midwives are struggling to use two of the other available options, which are gaining a referral from a specified medical practitioner or using the arrangement/acknowledgement from a specified medical practitioner.

While this should be generally reasonably straightforward for women who are using the public hospital system—some public hospital obstetricians are happy to provide an acknowledgement of collaboration for women seeking to give birth in a public hospital—unfortunately it is not occurring for those wishing to give birth in private hospitals with a private obstetrician and those wishing to give birth at home. We understand it is virtually impossible to gain a collaborative arrangement for antenatal care or birth. In other words, concerns remain about the collaborative arrangement approach. As I said, these concerns were articulated at the time and it is disappointing to have to report that there are still troubles with gaining access to collaborative arrangements.

The exemption for homebirths is only available until 30 June 2012, only a squeak over 12 months from now. This means, if you look at it this way, that women who fall pregnant from September this year will be back to where they were two years ago. In other words, it will be uncertain whether they will be able to access midwifery care for homebirth. I also understand that the cost of insurance has meant that many smaller midwife practices have ceased to practise, as they cannot afford to pay this insurance, which has particularly affected regional women wanting to have a homebirth. As we know, there are a number of women in regional areas who want to be able to choose to have a homebirth. So we are particularly concerned about that.

As has been stated here on a number of occasions, there have always been concerns about the ability of midwives to access insurance packages. There are rumours that, unfortunately, continue, and that I think need to be looked into, that insurers are refusing to extend insurance packages to include homebirths, due to a lack of data. At the same time, researchers have requested that data around homebirths be made available through the various state perinatal registers which is collected by AIHW nationally. We do not believe it should be claimed that these statistics do not exist; in fact, what somebody needs to do is collate the data. So there is an issue continuing around that.

Another issue that has been raised with me is to do with the prescribing course requirement, where eligible midwives sign an undertaking that they will complete a prescribing course within 18 months of gaining eligibility. That means that, in December, the first 15 midwives will have to have completed this course. Technically, it is possible that the eligibility could be removed because these courses have not been completed. However, at this stage, no prescribing course has been accredited by the ANMC and there does not appear to be a set of standards for which such a course could be developed. So that is another concern that midwives have about these collaborative arrangements.

So I do think there needs to be further engagement by the government in looking into these provisions, because such concerns remain. We also need to be looking at what is going to happen between now and next year in terms of dealing with the homebirth exemption. We had the same issues some time ago with the insurance requirements that meant that homebirths could not occur—in fact, there could potentially be big fines for supporting a homebirth—and, if this issue is not addressed, we will go back to that situation again. That is of course unacceptable to the Greens but particularly to many families out there who do wish to have a homebirth. I repeat: it is no good for the government and the medical profession to just bury their heads in the sand and say, 'Well, we'll just bring in measures to make it harder and harder to have a homebirth.' The situation that will eventuate is that women will what they call free-birth. Nobody can pretend that that will not happen, because people feel very strongly about it. We are much better off having a system where we provide a choice of births for mothers and families. Homebirth is one of those, and we need to ensure that homebirths can be supported in a very safe manner.

I urge the government to look at these issues, to support midwives, to look at the barriers to eligibility and collaborative arrangements, and to address this issue of eligibility, because there are only 12 months in which to do that. Many women who are pregnant in this half of the year will fall outside these exemption arrangements if something is not done fairly quickly. So I urge the government to take those messages on board.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions to the debate on this bill. This amendment bill is a relatively minor but important step in ensuring that appropriately qualified and experienced self-employed midwives will continue to have access to secure and reliable, Commonwealth sup­ported, professional indemnity cover. The bill makes sense and gives certainty to self-employed midwives and the women and families they care for. Like the government's recent investment in Medicare Benefits Scheme and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme access for patients of eligible midwives, this amendment bill will continue to ensure there is improved access to maternity services and improved choice for Australian women. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) 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.

I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the death of a person I did not spend a lot of my life with but for whom I have huge respect, and I refer to William Bernard Haskell, known as Bill Haskell. Bill was born on 9 May 1920 in Fremantle. He grew up in the pre-Depression and Depression period, and attended Richmond Primary School and Fremantle Boys High School. His first job was as a messenger boy in Fremantle, followed by general and junior clerical work at the Robb Jetty meatworks. He commenced part-time studies in accountancy around that time.

At the age of 19, he joined the 16th Battalion Cameron Highlanders and completed a three-month camp at Northam. In January 1940, Bill enlisted in the AIF and was an original member of the 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion. Bill saw service in the Syrian campaign as a Vickers machine-gunner and later in Batavia—Jakarta. It was here that they engaged with a large Japanese invasion force, resulting in Bill becoming a prisoner of war. He spent nine months in a Javanese prison camp. Then, in January 1943, his unit was sent to Thailand to work on the infamous Thai-Burma Railway, where they were given heavy workloads whilst in a state of continuous starvation.

You would be well aware, Mr Deputy President, of the treatment POWs received and the sickness they experienced, including tropical ulcers, and the death of so many of them. It must have been such a horrid time for these prisoners. Upon completion of the railway, Bill was shipped to Japan where he spent approximately a year as a coalminer in an extremely harsh climate, especially during the Japanese winter. At war's end, Bill was taken to the Australian authorities in Manila before returning to Australia. Bill took his discharge in 1946 and returned immediately to his old job at Robb's Jetty. In July 1946, he joined the Commonwealth Public Service where he was posted to the Taxation Office. By 1949, he had finished his accountancy degree and, after 34 years service, retired in 1980.

Bill married local girl Dulcie Neave in 1948 and was blessed with three children—two sons and a daughter. Bill was grand­father to five and great grandfather to five. He was a keen sportsman, representing the state in the lacrosse team winning the all-Australian carnival. He had a keen interest in swimming and was instrumental in forming the Polar Bear Club at Port Beach.

Bill along with Lieutenant Colonel Weary Dunlop—Sir Edward 'Weary' Dunlop—commenced the Quiet Lion Tours to Thailand for Anzac Day and were later co-founders of the Burma Thailand Railway Memorial Association. Since then, in excess of 1,300 people have taken part in these tours, mainly for Anzac Day, taking young ones from the Freemantle area to Thailand for Anzac Day on the Thai-Burma railway. Bill played a major part in establishing the Weary Dunlop Boon Pong Exchange Fellowship, which has been responsible for training in excess of 60 young Thai doctors in specialist surgical fields under a mentoring scheme.

In 2004, Bill Haskell, was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for service to the community, particularly through establishing public educational tours to the Thai-Burma railway.

I had the pleasure of meeting Bill Haskell in Thailand in 2005, the first time I attended a dawn service ceremony on Anzac Day in Thailand. It was inspiring to meet the man. What amazed me was that these people have been through so much, yet I would describe them as such decent, placid gentlemen. When I went back in 2007, taking another group back to Thailand for Anzac Day, I took my three children, David, Rebecca and Tom. The night before the Anzac Day dawn service we had a gathering at the Boon Pong resort where my children had the opportunity to sit down with Bill Haskell and talk to him for some time. I remember my daughter, Rebecca, was inspired and mesmerised by Bill and his nature.

When I returned in 2008 I went up to shake Bill's hand and he said, 'John, do you have your children with you this year?' I said, 'Not this year, Bill.' He was sharp in the mind and a very decent man. I saw Bill Haskell on other occasions in 2008, 2009 and 2010. I recall one of the years when, after the dawn service in Thailand, we went to the Kanchanaburi War Cemetery, where some 7,000 former prisoners of war are buried, at which Bill gave the address at the 11 o'clock service.

I had the pleasure of enjoying Bill's company. We would have a beer. Bill was a keen sportsman, as I have said. The sad news came on 1 May this year when Bill passed away at home in Fremantle. I spoke to my good friend Bill Slape, who is the manager of the Hellfire Pass Memorial Museum, just before Anzac Day and asked him whether Bill Haskell was going over this year along with people such as Neil MacPherson, who was there this year. He told me that Bill was not in good health. It was only a brief period after Anzac Day, on 1 May, that I got the news that Bill had sadly passed away. I could not make it to Fremantle to Bill's funeral, but I would like to thank Senator Cash who went to the funeral and met many of Bill's friends there.

I pay tribute to Bill. He was a great man and recognised in Australia. You cannot imagine how these people could suffer so much and yet, when returning from war, they simply got on with their lives. They had no counselling, no mentoring or anything; it was just, 'Get back to work, soldier, the war's over.' That is what many went through. It was amazing to meet people like Bill Haskell. That is why I stand tonight to pay tribute to Bill. Many people will miss him, me being one of them.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Towards the end of World War II, and in the opening stages of the Cold War, Australia was seen by other nations as a high-value target for sourcing valuable intelligence. Despite having significant access to sensitive information from the US and Britain, our domestic intelligence services were inadequate, and there was initially no enthusiasm for reform under the Chifley government.

Only after being presented with evidence of information leaving Australia through the Soviet embassy did the government begin to think about serious reform. Highly classified decrypts of Soviet diplomatic traffic which had been intercepted by the Allied signals intelligence organisation, most notably from an operation known by the cryptonym Venona, led to an overhaul of Australia's security apparatus and the formation of ASIO, with the primary purpose of investigating the extent of Soviet espionage in Australia. The new organisation became a point of disagreement within the adminis­tration, chiefly from Dr. Evatt, who would later preside over the anti-Communist split that shattered the ALP for the best part of a generation.

In their book Breaking the Codes: Australia's KGB network, 1944-1950, Desmond Ball and David Homer from the ANU describe in great detail the nature of information leakages from Australia and the discovery of the KLOD spy ring that was supplying sensitive documents, including Allied postwar strategy documents, to the Soviet Union. The Venona decrypts were proof of the inadequacy of Australian arrangements to prevent such breaches, but due to their sensitivity not even Prime Minister Chifley was initially briefed on their contents. A gulf occurred between Australia and the United States in particular when intelligence cooperation was cut off due to the government's unwillingness to believe change was necessary until some members of the cabinet were informed about the compelling nature of the Venona evidence.

Espionage was encouraged by the Soviet Union in all of its affiliated parties across the world. In 1930, the executive committee of the Comintern in Moscow advised its member parties that 'legal forms of activity must be combined with systematic illegal work' and that 'all legal parties' should 'immediately undertake measures to establish an illegal apparatus'. Breaking the Codes provides an interesting insight into the individuals involved in such operations. I would like to provide an overview of some of the principal characters and the degree of access that foreign agents managed to achieve. The organisation of clandestine networks in Australia was primarily done through the Communist Party. In particular, Walter Clayton, an organiser for the CPA and a member of their Central Committee, was to become the Soviet spymaster for a ring of agents including within the Department of External Affairs, and became known to Moscow Centre by the codename KLOD. As the Cold War set in, the CPA re-established underground networks in case the party was to be banned again, as it was for a period in World War II. Clayton had significant responsibility for this organisation and even established a network of safe houses, with CPA members volunteering their properties for this purpose.

Clayton's first informants were members of the CPA, their friends and family. Much of the information gathered from party members would have been innocuous but provided Russian intelligence with a picture of potential recruits with access to the more useful information they sought. These party contacts included prominent and public communists such as Katharine Susannah Prichard, an author of some notoriety. Miles Franklin, a contemporary of Prichard, described her loyalty to Stalinist Russia as:

For Prichard, this achievement of communism in Australia meant unquestioned dedication to the Soviet Union.

These were the days of people who believed in fostering revolution and furthering the interests of a totalitarian state in preference to their own homeland.

Some members of the CPA held positions with significant access to sensitive material. Two agents in the KLOD spy ring were employees of the Department of External Affairs itself, and were also members of the Communist Party, although they were very secretive about it. Ian Milner, codenamed BUR, found Marxism as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford and is said to have believed that Russia was 'the one power whose foreign policy was capable of leading to a just world order'. Ball and Horner described him as the 'foremost member of the group in terms of the strategic importance of the documentary material he supplied'. He was a covert communist recruiter throughout his time in academia before joining External Affairs in 1944. In the post-hostilities planning division, Milner had access to all the files on Australian and British postwar strategy and he began passing information on to KLOD in September 1945. Documents requested by Moscow Centre were borrowed from the department and photographed in the Soviet residency.

Milner fled to Czechoslovakia in July 1950, most likely after hearing that the heat was on after the interrogation of fellow traitor Jim Hall by MI5 in London. Hill, for a while a dual card carrying ALP and CPA member, was introduced to External Affairs and the post-hostility planning division by Milner. He began providing information to KLOD in 1945, primarily official telegrams received from the British Foreign Office. Both Milner and Hill worked for a time in the United Nations mission, which would have been a source of similarly sensitive strategic and political material.

Another very well placed Soviet asset was Alfred Hughes, codenamed BEN, who was the chief investigator in the counterespionage section of the security service and specifically tasked with monitoring 'subversive associations and the operations of the Communist Party'. Hughes was in a position to actively inform Soviet intelligence of operations against their assets and deliberately mislead or thwart the flow of accurate information to Australian authorities. Hughes also had connections to what appears to have been another nest of Soviet agents—the office of Dr Evatt, who was then the Minister for External Affairs—where he is said to have been a frequent visitor. A number of staff members in Evatt's personal office were associated with the espionage efforts of the Soviet Union, including typist Frances Bernie, the only individual to confess to engaging in espionage. The role and motivation of Evatt in particular has been extensively studied, such as in Dr Andrew Campbell's article entitled Dr HV Evatt: the question of loyalty, which I recommend as further reading.

These are just some of the relationships that could be regarded as improper, and it is likely that some of them are extreme. Minister Evatt and his departmental secretary, John Burton, believed they were contributing to ideals of greater understanding through the sharing of information—termed 'open diplomacy'—and neither had any love for the security services. Evatt was the most strident opponent to the establishment of ASIO and it has been noted that most progress in establishing that agency occurred when he was out of the country. He also famously tipped off the author Prichard in person about the fact that she was a person of interest to the security services.

The split in the ALP during Evatt's time as leader was motivated in part by the scale of communist activity within the party, despite it being well known that many were dual members or swore loyalty to the Bolshevik revolution not Australia and its democracy. The ALP Anti-Communist Party, later to become the DLP, was to prevent Labor returning to power for decades.

This is but a brief overview of the success of Soviet spies that led Australia to recognise counterintelligence as necessary in preventing the unwanted and undue medd­ling of Stalinist Russia in its quest to under­mine its geopolitical rivals. It exemplifies the fact that Australian communists had significant loyalty to the Soviet Union and swore fealty to that state as the prime sponsor of revolutionary activity.

Communism as an ideology was a vehicle for encouraging 'entryism', the political tactic of infiltrating an organisation in order to turn it to another altogether different purpose, and throughout the Cold War the ALP was a destination for many such efforts. I suspect the Greens political party understand the concept of entryism all too well. Communism in the ALP took many decades to eradicate and only truly perished with the fall of the Berlin Wall. There are even former ministers in Labor governments who are confirmed or highly suspected to have been dual card holders of both the CPA and ALP right up until the 1980s. I will seek to speak in more detail about such personalities next week.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I rise to pay tribute and respects to Mr Grahame Kidd. Mr Grahame Kidd was a keen golfer. He was not a professional who won tournaments. Grahame Kidd was not a person who won Australia Day honours, but in my mind and in the minds of hundreds, indeed thousands of people, particularly young students and even older students who were educated by Grahame, he was a true hero. Grahame Kidd lived in the Sutherland shire and he was very close personal friend of mine and of my family and indeed, of many, many other people in the Sutherland shire and beyond. Grahame Kidd passed away on Monday, 23 May, having suffered a sudden stroke on 28 April. Grahame was doing one of those things that he always did: he was doing an odd job, fixing something around the house. I think he was doing some plumbing repairs. He suffered a stroke and was taken to hospital. He was operated on—twice. Although there were some initial signs that he might recover, sadly, he did not. His condition deteriorated. He passed away on 23 May.

Grahame was only 66 years old. He was just short of his 67th birthday. He was a great Aussie bloke. I know that nobody in the Senate or the parliament knew this chap, but I hope that at the end of my remarks they will understand why I rise in this great parliament today to pay him tribute.

Grahame loved a beer, especially his own home brew, which he seemed to make huge quantities of. I think that is what happens when you start making home brew: you end up with lots of it. He loved a game of golf, as I said. I used to play occasionally with Grahame and I must say I was really looking forward to resuming playing golf with him in a few weeks time after I retire from the Senate.

Grahame dearly loved his wife, Sue, and his children, Vanessa and David, and their families—particularly his grandkids. I was a great friend and my wife, Jan, was also a great friend of Grahame and Sue. We got to know them when we first moved into the Engadine area where Grahame and Sue lived back in the mid-seventies. His funeral was held at our local parish church, St John Bosco at Engadine. It was the largest crowd I have ever seen in that church. It was absolutely packed and there were hundreds of people outside. It was an amazing turnout. Why were they there? They were there because they had lost a great friend and a person who had an enormous impact on the lives of many people. That impact was particularly through his teaching career. Many people at his funeral, and at a wonderful wake afterwards, spoke about his devotion to his family and his dedication to the teaching profession.

Grahame commenced teaching in 1964 at Yowie Bay Primary School in the shire. In 1967 he went off to Parkes High School in rural New South Wales, where he was a special teacher assisting children with learning difficulties. At that time he developed a fascination for maths. He went off and started a university degree, which he completed in 1970, specialising in mathematics. In 1968, he was appointed to Joseph Banks High School in Sydney and, three years later, he was appointed as maths head teacher at Jannali High School in the shire. He was only 26. That was a very young age for a person to be appointed a head teacher. In 1980 he was transferred to Gymea High School. In 1987 he was appointed deputy principal at Kingsgrove High School and then, in 1995, he received his first appointment as a principal. He was appointed principal at Cabramatta High School, where he stayed until he retired in 2003.

We were around at Grahame's place the night after he received notice that he had been appointed principal at Cabramatta High School. I have to say that back in those days when anybody mentioned Cabramatta there was a sense of trepidation, because that area had a pretty bad reputation—which I will not go into in great detail—and most unfairly, in many respects, because it is a wonderful part of Sydney with a very multicultural community. Grahame took on the challenge with relish, and he told me once that he was very proud to have been appointed to that high school, because he had students there—particularly the students of Vietnamese families and other migrant nationalities—who were keen to get an education, and their parents were keen for their children to get an education.

I say all that because, sadly, back in 2001, Alan Jones, the well-known, multimillionaire media star, together with then detective Tim Priest, launched a vicious and untrue campaign making false allegations about Cabramatta High School. Alan Jones interviewed Tim Priest and alleged on the radio that the school was a haven for drug pushers, for criminal gangs, that students were being recruited to sell drugs and that there had been serious criminal acts of violence in the school. Indeed, an allegation was made that a student was attacked with a machete. This went on for days and days—and this was typical of Alan Jones. I remember when he did the same thing and stirred up the Cronulla race riots—but I will not go into that one.

When all of this was investigated by a committee of the New South Wales Legislative Council and members of the parliament on both sides heard the evidence, it became absolutely clear that this was an outrageous slur on this wonderful school and this wonderful principal. It was totally false. Allegations had been made up and then presented on Sydney radio as if they were true. Of course, Grahame was hurt. He tried to get onto Alan Jones's program, but Alan Jones would not interview him. He would not give him the opportunity to respond on the radio. That is typical of Mr Jones—the man who constantly talks over or cuts off anybody who disagrees with him. I acknowledge all the things that Mr Jones might do for charity and so on, but there are many occasions when he intimidates and belittles people and falsely accuses them—as he did in this case. Later on the facts become clear, but often it is too late.

Grahame did eventually get the opportunity, on Four Corners, where all of this was laid out in a program and it was all demonstrated to have been an unfair and vicious attack. Anyone who knows Cabra­matta High School knows what a wonderful school it really is. I wanted to take the opportunity tonight to recognise the fact that Grahame was deeply, deeply hurt on that occasion, but he has a reputation in education that is second to none. That was demonstrated by the fact that in Maralyn Parker's education column in the Daily Telegraph the day before Grahame's funeral, he was named as dux of the week. He had much more to give to the community. Grahame served as the secretary and then the president of the Engadine Dragons Junior Rugby League Football Club. For all of the years after his retirement up until his sad and untimely death, he was the treasurer of the local Probus Club. He was doing things for his community, just as he had done for so long in educating the students of Cabramatta High School and other schools.

Tonight I put on the record that the community owes a debt to Grahame Kidd. I extend my sincere sympathies—I have already done this, of course, but I do it publicly again—to Sue, Vanessa, David and their families and to all of Grahame's friends. He was a great Aussie bloke and a true hero.

Senate adjourned at 19 : 01

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 December 2010:

With reference to the Thai Burma border:

(1) Has AusAID, in regard to its Burma aid program, conducted a needs assessment for Burma and exiled populations from Burma such as the refugees on the Thai Burma border; if so: (a) when was this assessment conducted; and (b) what was the methodology used.

(2) Did non government organisations and other groups or individuals with an interest in Australia's aid program to Burma participate in this assessment; if so, how was this participation facilitated.

(3) Can detailed information be provided, including in a visual format, of the reach of the AusAID Burma aid program, including where the populations they work with are located, and the location of direct and indirect beneficiaries – this mapping should also include programs delivered by partners.

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) and (2) The Australian Government has been a long term provider of assistance to Burmese refugees in camps in Thailand and displaced Burmese people. In planning and providing such support AusAID consults widely with the Australian Council for International Development, Australian and international non-government organisations (INGOs), community organisations, UN agencies and other donors about the humanitarian needs of Burmese refugees in Thailand. AusAID officers attended the Thai-Burma Border Consortium (TBBC) Annual Donor Dialogue in November 2010 and visited three refugee camps close to Mae Sot and Mae Hong Son on the Thai-Burma border to monitor Australian-funded activities.

A number of other international partners, including the United Kingdom and the European Commission have undertaken needs assessments and evaluations of assistance to the Thai-Burma border over the past four years. These assessments were shared with AusAID and help to inform Australian Government policy on refugee needs and gaps in donor support. This information, together with independent monitoring of Australian-funded activities, guides the development of a strategic approach towards meeting the long term interests of the refugees and displaced people on the Thai-Burma border.

(3) The Australian Government has developed a broad package of assistance to support INGOs and community organisations working in refugee camps and along the Thai-Burma border. The Australian Government has:

As part of an expanded aid package to Burma, Australia tripled its support to Burmese refugees in camps in Thailand in 2010-11, and broadened the number of partners we work with along the Thai-Burma border. Our assistance continues to support the basic needs of refugees, but also promotes self-reliance by building the capacity of refugees and displaced people to develop and utilise their own resources.

A map identifying the reach of the AusAID aid program along the Thai-Burma border, including the ten refugee camps supported through the Thai Burma Border Consortium is available from the Senate Table Office. The map also shows our INGO and community organisation partners and locations of the aid activities and the populations/beneficiaries they work with.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 2011:

With reference to the statistical summary of the statement of Australia's International Development Assistance Program 2008-09, published by AusAID in December 2010, which stated that Australia gave, in total, $546,000 in assistance to the production sector in Burma, the production sector being described as including agriculture, forestry and fishing; industry, mining and construction; and trade and tourism:

(1) To whom was this financial assistance provided and for what purpose.

(2) What outcomes were achieved as a result of this assistance being provided.

(3) Was similar financial assistance provided to the production sector in Burma during: (a) the 2009-10 financial year; and (b) the 2010-11 financial year.

(4) Were any discussions held with AusAID or departmental officials, parliamentarians or other governmental agencies about such financial assistance being in violation of Australia's policy regarding trade and investment in Burma.

(5) Given that AusAID is currently in the process of creating a Burma strategy, expected to be completed by the middle of 2011, and that an interim report was released in December 2010, what process is being used in developing the strategy, particularly in relation to how the policy is being shaped and who is involved in doing this.

(6) Will the policy drafting process be made public and will there be a mechanism or an avenue for the public to engage with this process, such as, by making a submission to AusAID.

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) and (2) The following table provides details of Australia's assistance to the production sector in Burma in 2008-09, including aims and outcomes:

*Payments to WTO and the ASEAN Secretariat involved global and regional amounts which were nominally shared across relevant AusAID country programs, including the Burma program.

(3) Yes.

(4) The activities referred to in the question were designed carefully to ensure consistency with the Government's policy. The activities funded (see table above) involved:

(5) The timeframe for finalisation of the Burma country strategy is now the fourth quarter of 2011. The strategy is being developed by AusAID and involves consultation with other Australian Government agencies, the Australian Council for International Development, Australian non-government organisations with a presence in Burma, and other interested parties. The final strategy will be available on the AusAID website following approval by the Government.

(6) Australia's strategic approach to aid in Burma: An interim statement was placed on the AusAID website in December 2010. It outlined Australia's proposed strategy for its aid program to Burma and noted that further consultations with key stakeholders would occur as the final strategy was prepared. Parties with an interest in Burma are welcome to send submissions to AusAID at: infoausaid@ausaid.gov.au.

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 12 April 2011:

(1) With reference to Group 2 asylum seekers, unauthorized boat arrivals:

(a) can a full account be provided of the health screening process that is undertaken upon the asylum seeker's arrival into immigration detention;

(b) how long does this health screening process take; and

(c) is each asylum seeker subjected to the same health screening process upon arrival; if not: (i) why not; and (ii) what are the different health screening processes to which the asylum seekers are subjected.

(2) With reference to the department's 'Fact Sheet 75', which states, 'The department has a comprehensive process for checking the health of irregular maritime arrivals. An Induction Health Assessment is conducted to identify conditions that will require attention. This assessment includes the collection of personal and medical history, a physical examination and formalised mental health screening and assessment':

(a) can a full list be provided detailing the medical tests undertaken during the process for checking the health of an irregular maritime arrival; and

(b) what diseases are tested for.

(3) With reference to the department's fact sheet regarding the proposed Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre at Northam, Western Australia, and the statement, 'The department has rigorous screening processes in place to ensure that all asylum seekers are screened for TB within 72 hours of arrival into immigration detention':

(a) can an outline be provided detailing what the 'rigorous screening process' for tuberculosis entails;

(b) does this rigorous screening process include an x-ray for each asylum seeker; if not, why not;

(c) are all asylum seekers subjected to this 'rigorous screening process' for tuberculosis; if not, why not and upon what basis;

(d) what tests are undertaken to identify if an asylum seeker has tuberculosis or not;

(e) how many asylum seekers have been identified as having tuberculosis since August 2007; and

(f) does this 'rigorous screening process' test for active disease and latent infection tuberculosis; if not, why not.

(4)What is the process undertaken if an asylum seeker tests positive to the tuberculosis skin test reaction (PPD test).

(5) Are all asylum seekers subjected to secondary testing for tuberculosis 8 to 10 weeks after the initial testing; if not, why not.

(6) What is the process undertaken if an asylum seeker tests positive for active tuberculosis.

(7) Given that asylum seekers who test positive and present with symptoms of tuberculosis are kept isolated from the rest of the detention population:

(a) where are these asylum seekers kept;

(b) are they kept in a quarantine facility; and

(c) how long are they held there.

(8) Can a list be provided of all quarantine facilities available at immigration detention centres in Australia, including the patient capacity of each facility.

(9) Given that the department's fact sheet regarding the proposed Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre at Northam, Western Australia states, 'Based on advice from the National Tuberculosis Advisory Committee, we are confident that asylum seekers do not pose any public health threat to the Northam community':

(a) what was the basis of the advice upon which this statement was made; and

(b) can a copy of this advice be provided.

(10) What procedures are in place to ensure that front line staff working with asylum seekers are protected from infectious diseases, including when the procedures were last reviewed and by whom.

(11) Is the department aware of any instances in which Customs officers contracted tuberculosis from asylum seekers between 2008 and 2011; if so, can details be provided of how many Customs officers have been affected in each year, for each of the following calendar years, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

(12) Can details be provided of the department's guidelines that deal with infection control measures, containment processes, monitoring and reporting of infectious diseases.

(13) Does the department have a system in place which allows for the monitoring of threats of outbreaks such as Hendra virus and Lyssavirus, and emerging disease, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and avian influenza, as recommended by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners 'Standards for Health Services in Immigration Detention Centres'; if not, why not.

(14) What emergency plans are in place in the event of an outbreak of infectious disease at any:

(a) Australian Immigration Detention Centre;

(b) Australian Immigration Residential Housing facility;

(c) Australian Immigration Transit Accommodation Centre; and

(d) Australian Alternative Place of Detention.

(15) What emergency plans are in place in the event of an infectious disease epidemic occurring within the Shire of Northam.

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) For people transferred to Christmas Island via a Royal Australian Navy (RAN) vessel or undetected arrivals, the Department's contracted Health Services Provider (HSP) conducts public health screening immediately following their arrival. For people transferred to Christmas Island via an Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) vessel, initial public health screenings are usually conducted prior to arriving at the Christmas Island Wharf.

For clients transferred to Christmas Island via a RAN vessel or undetected arrivals, on arrival at Christmas Island, a comprehensive health screen is undertaken by the HSP, comprising a team of primary health care staff, including mental health staff. The health screen process consists of the following:

For a client arriving via an ACBPS vessel, the HSP completes the health screening process initiated by ACBPS, by ordering and reviewing pathology tests and a CXR. A Health Induction Assessment is also carried out.

(b) Health screening takes approximately 90 minutes per client, assuming there are no interruptions to the process and not including the time taken for CXR and pathology blood tests.

(c) All Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) are subjected to health induction and screening, with the following exceptions:

(2) (a) Health screening processes are comprehensive and include:

(3) (a) TB testing includes:

(b) The screening process does include a CXR for all IMAs, except those under 12 years of age and those who are pregnant (a urine pregnancy test is carried out and the result documented prior to the CXR being conducted).

(c) All IMAs undergo this screening process, however, CXRs are not undertaken for those under 12 years of age and those who are pregnant (a urine pregnancy test is carried out and the result documented prior to the CXR being conducted).

(d) See (3) (a).

(e) There have been a total of three IMAs identified as having active TB in the period 1 August 2007 to 30 April 2011.

(f) Yes. The TB Questionnaire provides a method for evaluating the possibility of an acute (active) TB infection. The CXR will show scarring from an old infection (possible latent TB) and signs of active infection. Further clarification and appropriate treatment is determined by the Western Australian (WA) TB Service.

(4) IMAs do not undergo the TB skin test (i.e. Purified Protein Derivative – PDD test). As indicated above, TB testing for IMAs includes:

Any person noted to have a cough for three months or haemoptysis, has a mask put on immediately and the GP is notified and the client is sent to the Christmas Island Hospital for an urgent CXR, sputum collection and management. All contacts have a Mantoux test and a CXR and treatment is provided, as necessary. All long term clients with a productive cough for three months or more have a repeat CXR conducted. All long term clients with haemoptysis are sent to hospital with a mask on for sputum collection and repeat CXR. All positive active TB cases are reported to the WA Population Health Unit (PHU) and the Chest Clinic, Perth.

All practices followed on Christmas Island are according to advice and guidelines provided by the WA TB service.

(5) As per WA TB Service protocols, secondary testing is not routinely carried out unless the IMA is symptomatic or has a high index of suspicion, in which case three samples of sputum on consecutive days is collected and submitted for an acid-fast bacillus (AFB) smear and culture. All practices followed on Christmas Island are according to advice and guidelines provided by the WA TB service.

(6) The WA TB Service (or other respective State/Territory TB service), is contacted immediately if a sputum result returns positive on either AFB smear or culture. Treatment, including drug supply, medical follow up, the need for isolation and contact tracing is led by the WA TB Service (or other respective State/Territory TB service), with HSP staff assisting, as needed.

(7) (a) The need for isolation is determined and coordinated by the WA TB Service (or other respective State/Territory TB service), with HSP staff assisting, as needed. With regards to Christmas Island, the local hospital has a negative pressure room and if needed, the HSP has the capacity to isolate on site at the North West Point Immigration Detention Centre. It prefers, however, to utilise the hospital, pending transfer off Island to a tertiary hospital.

(b) See response to (a).

(c) The need for and duration of isolation is determined by the WA TB Service (or other respective State/Territory TB service). A client would usually be admitted to the Christmas Island Hospital and/or Perth Chest Clinic and would be isolated/treated according to Department of Health, Western Australia policies and procedures.

(8) There are no formally designated quarantine facilities (as such) in Australian Immigration Detention Centres. Rather, each site has a designated area that can be utilised to medically isolate an individual or several individuals, as per the HSP's contractual requirement and scope of service. On Christmas Island/North West Point, there are two negatively pressured rooms for the purposes of medical isolation and there is also one such room at the ChristmasIsland Hospital. These were constructed and commissioned in recognition of the fact that Christmas Island is the most common entry point of IMAs into immigration detention and the most likely site to identify potential communicable/transmissible diseases. Once the client has been identified as having a communicable/transmissible disease, advice is immediately sought from the respective public health body and in many cases, the client is transferred to a tertiary unit for further treatment and isolation.

(9) (a) In June 2010, the Department received advice from the National Tuberculosis Advisory Committee (NTAC) regarding concerns they held around the way TB was being both screened and managed on Christmas Island by the Department, and when people in immigration detention were transferred to mainland detention facilities. The Department responded to the concerns and recommendations raised by NTAC by implementing a number of changes to its processes. NTAC subsequently advised they were satisfied the Department had responded appropriately to their recommendations, and the Department undertook to continue to consult with NTAC in relation to its TB policy. The Department is currently communicating with NTAC around developing a national approach to the screening and treatment of TB for people in immigration detention.

(b) A copy of this advice is not available, as it was provided to the Department verbally.

(10) All staff working within immigration detention facilities maintain universal precautions, as per current health standards and CDC guidelines. The HSP has an entire module of its Policy and Procedures Manual dedicated to the issue of Infection Control. This module was last formally reviewed by the Department and HSP in October 2010.

(11) ACBPS has advised that, as far as it is aware, no Customs officers have contracted TB from IMAs between 2008 and 2011 (as at 21 April 2011).

(12) All communicable/transmissible diseases are notifiable to the WA PHU and are recorded on a spreadsheet. The following table sets out established HSP disease management protocols for a number of communicable/transmissible diseases.

(13) Yes. The HSP monitors for threats of outbreaks through a system of clinical surveillance, index identification, case cluster analysis, State Public Health Authority liaison and State/Territory Department of Health notification for confirmed cases of communicable/transmissible diseases. These systems are in line with the current CDC guidelines.

(14) (a) Emergency plans are in line with current CDC guidelines.

(b) As above.

(c) As above.

(d) As above.

(15) As above.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, upon notice, on 15 April 2011:

In each of the 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 (to date) financial years, how many complaints did the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal receive relating to superannuation funds that were:

(a) industry superannuation funds;(b) self-managed superannuation funds; and(c) other types of funds.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(a) Industry superannuation funds:

For the purposes of providing a response to this question, the Tribunal has adopted the classification of fund type made by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority in its statistical reports.

2007-08: 504

2008-09: 617

2009-10: 613

2010-11 (to 29 April 2011): 590

(b) The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over complaints relating to superannuation funds that are self-managed superannuation funds.

(c) Other types of funds (all other complaints):

2007-08: 1,994

2008-09: 1,929

2009-10: 1,868

2010-11 (to 29 April 2011): 1,426

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 April 2011:

With reference to the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, has the department conducted any research or modelling into what impact the proposed scheme will have on total food production in Australia; if so, can full details of this research or modelling be provided; if not, why not.

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

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

The 2008 Government report Australia’s Low Pollution Future: The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation provided details of modelling of the effect of a carbon price on the economy. One of the scenarios modelled in that report, labelled ‘CPRS-5’, incorporated information on scheme design from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper and was calibrated to achieve a carbon mitigation target of 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 and 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050. The impact of pricing carbon on total food production was not separately identified. However, that report contained economic projections for a number of industries that produce food.

Table: Gross Output, by sector, 2050- CPRS-5 Scenario

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, upon notice, on 19 April 2011:

(1) What monitoring does the department conduct of compliance by local government authorities with the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code.

(2) In each of the 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 financial years:

(a) what specific action has the department taken to ensure compliance With the code;(b) which local government authorities have breached the code; and(c) what action has been taken in each specific instance where a breach of The code has been identified.

(3) Is the Minister aware of any concerns raised about possible breaches of the code by the City of Wanneroo, Western Australia.

(4) What investigations have been conducted into any such possible breaches by The City of Wanneroo.

(5) Have these investigations identified any breaches of the code; if so, what action has been taken against the City of Wanneroo to address these breaches.

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 ) The arrangement by which councils conduct citizenship ceremonies on behalf of the Commonwealth Government is based on good will and mutual agreement rather than a legal relationship which is enforced with punitive measures . This arrangement has been in place since the 1950s.

(2) The Department does not keep a register of non-compliance with the Code . The Department maintains regular contact with local government council ceremony organisers through its state and territory offices to ensure that councils are aware of the legal requirements as well as the policy and procedures contained in the Code.

(3) There are only three legal requirements stipulated in the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code:

Any issues arising are managed on a case-by-case basis. Other procedures, policy and protocol are

provided as guidance for local co uncils and other organisations conducting citizenship ceremonies.

(2) (a) As previously mentioned, the Department maintains regular contact with local government council

ceremony organisers through its state and territory offices to ensure that councils are aware of the legal requirements as well as the policy and procedures contained in the Code.

The Department also conducts regular information sessions for councils to provide them with an opportunity to seek clarification on any matters of concern and to ensure ceremony organisers understand their responsibilities under the Code.

From time to time departmental officers attend council ceremonies to assist councils, provide feedback and to clarify any points of procedure .

(b) The Department is aware of one breach of the above mentioned legal requirements of the Code. The Hawkesbury Council was found not to have fulfilled all of the legal requirements for an Australian citizenship ceremony on 18 August 2009 as the presiding officer did not read Schedule 1 of the Australian Citizenship Regulations 2007 (known as the preamble for citizenship ceremonies).

(c) The Hawkesbury Council was required to recall the candidates for citizenship from that day and to conduct another citizenship ceremony.

(3) At the same time that this Question on Notice was received, t he Minister r eceived a letter informing him of concerns about the City of Wanneroo ' s application of the Code . T he concerns raised do not constitute a breach of the legal requirements stipulated in the Code.

(4 ) and ( 5) The Department has been in contact with the City of Wanneroo to remind them of the expectation in the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code to schedule citizenship ceremonies, wherever possible, on non parliamentary sitting days . The City of Wanneroo has been asked to revise some of the scheduled dates for citizenship ceremonies in 2011 in order to give elected representatives from all levels of    government an opportunity to attend and welcome new citizens.

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

asked the Prime Minister and other ministers, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed. (2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed. (3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability. (4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability. (5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why. (6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not. (7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability. (8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

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:

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

(1) 1051 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are 11 employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) Job applicants are encouraged to disclose disability status. PM&C provides flexible recruitment practices to accommodate people with a disability in all phases of the recruitment process and with reasonable adjustment once they are employed. PM&C's Workplace Diversity Program is available on the Department's website. PM&C is a gold member of the Australian Network on Disability.

(4) PM&C has a Disability Action Plan registered with the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. This plan, linked with the Department's Workplace Diversity Program, focuses on addressing the needs of people with a disability through the provision of services and the dissemination of information in relation to disability issues. The plan has three key elements:

These strategies encourage an environment that accepts and adapts to the needs of people with a disability to assist in retaining these employees.

(5) PM&C provides internship opportunities to people with a disability currently studying at a university level. These internships are through the "Stepping Into…" programs from the Department's gold membership with the Australian Network on Disability. The Department currently employs staff with a disability recruited through Koomarri disability services in conjunction with the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

All employees within PM&C have access to three free executive coaching sessions per year with an Executive Coach who is a member of the PM&C Career Advisory Panel (CAP). All Executive Coaches on the CAP are professional and independent and contracted by PM&C to provide employees with advice in relation to all aspects of their career. The panel is available to staff on a self-referral basis.

(6) Currently PM&C does not have any disability targets in place as there are no obligations for employees to disclose their disability. PM&C applies its diversity principles in alignment with Commonwealth legislation as well as any principles applied by the Australian Public Service Commission.

People with a disability are encouraged to apply for PM&C positions and all reasonable efforts are made to adjust the selection process to provide an equal opportunity for all applicants.

(7) PM&C provides a supportive environment for staff with a disability. Services for staff with a disability include:

(8) PM&C is reviewing its Workplace Diversity Program and implementing a three year Workplace Diversity Strategy with a focus on people with a disability. The Department is also further developing a reasonable adjustment employment guideline to assist with providing services to staff who identify as having a disability.

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority

(1) 62 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are no employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) ASADA does not have a specific program; however, reference to people with disability will be included in the draft policy – "Diversity Plan 2011-2015"under the heading 'Attracting, developing and retaining people with disabilities'.

(4) No current strategies have been developed. All staff are covered under the Workforce Plan 2010-2014 including succession planning and individual career plans as well as the draft Diversity Plan.

(5) All staff have completed Individual Career Plans which are to be reviewed at least annually, preferably bi-annually. Staff can link their careering planning to staff development opportunities.

(6) No targets have been set. Recruitment is based on merit based selection.

(7) OHS requirements are met to ensure the workplace is suitable for the disability being accommodated.

(8) ASADA is aware of the APS Best Practice – Tapping the Talent of People with Disability and intends to ensure the eight objectives are considered in future planning arrangements.

The draft Diversity Plan focuses on creating, developing, maintaining and encouraging a culture that accepts, respects, promotes and values diversity.

Australian Sports Commission

(1) 738 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are six employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) ASC recruitment guidelines and practice require that any reasonable adjustments to cater for special needs be considered as part of the selection process and in employment.

(4) The ASC does not have specific strategies for the retention of people with a disability.

(5) During 2010 and 2011 the ASC has been working in partnership with the ACT Department of Education and Training to establish work placements for students with a disability. These students are being supported to establish careers within their chosen fields through undertaking work experience at the ASC whilst studying and as opportunities arise, are being offered positions at the ASC to assist their transition from school to work.

(6) The ASC does not have specific employment targets for recruitment and retention of people with a disability within the workforce. Despite this, a number of targeted recruitment initiatives have been implemented to increase and sustain the overall representation of people with disabilities, such as establishing a number of work placements for students with a disability.

(7) The ASC is reviewing an existing Disability Action Plan, which forms part of a broader Diversity Strategy under development.

(8) The ASC has taken account of the Government's updated Disability Standards for Access to Premises and is as an affiliate of the ACT Government's Companion Card scheme. This works to encourage and support those with a disability to make use of facilities available, providing greater visibility of, and access to, the ASC including as a potential employer.

Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security

(1) 13 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are no employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) There are no specific policies or programs in place due to the small number of staff employed by OIGIS and limited recruitment opportunities. Hearing and speech impaired people are invited to use the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's TTY number when applying for employment opportunities in OIGIS.

(4) The OIGIS Enterprise Agreement provides for employees who are affected by a disability to be eligible for a supported wage.

(5) None. Due to the small number of staff employed by OIGIS this is not practical.

(6) Due to the small number of staff employed by OIGIS this is not practical.

(7) The OIGIS Enterprise Agreement provides for employees who are affected by a disability to be eligible for a supported wage. In the event that OIGIS recruited a person with a disability, we would implement policies and services of a similar standard to those provided in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

(8) N/A.

National Archives of Australia

(1) 485 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are five employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) The Archives has in place a Workforce Diversity Program 2010-2012 that sets the agency's commitment and objective to attract and retain employees from diverse backgrounds as well as embedding diversity principles into the Archives' culture and daily operations. Some of the strategies within the Program include:

One strategy proposed to address the objectives of the program is to develop a specific People with Disability Employment Strategy. This Strategy is currently being drafted and will target the implementation of formal procedures to recruit and retain people with disabilities.

(4) The People with Disability Employment Strategy which is currently being drafted will provide a range of specific retention strategies.

Current employees with a disability at the Archives have access to:

(5) All staff within the Archives are actively encouraged to manage their career through the implementation of an Individual Performance Agreement and to regularly discuss and assess their work performance and career goals through performance management processes. Assistance is also provided upon request from individuals.

Various training programs provided by the Archives are available to staff at different classification levels to assist them to develop skills in line with their Individual Performance Agreements.

(6) Although the Archives is not using a specific target level for the recruitment and retention of people with a disability, the agency is working to implement a percentage that is in proportion to the Australian population (with reference to the Australian Government's National Mental Health and Disability Employment Strategy).

(7) The Archives has a range of policies and services to support people with a disability including:

(8) The Archives' Workplace Diversity Program 2010-12 provides information to all staff about the importance and relevance of workplace diversity. It recognises the Archives' commitment to workplace diversity and embedding diversity principles into the Archives' culture and operations. The draft People with Disability Employment Strategy aims to attract, recruit and retain people with a disability.

Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman

(1) 167 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are seven employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) The Office is committed to meeting its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 through the Ombudsman's Disability Action Plan and the Workplace Diversity Framework and Plan. The Office also has Recruitment and Selection Guidelines which identify that measures must be taken to eliminate any employment-related disadvantage including on the basis of physical or mental disability.

(4) The Office does not currently have any specific retention strategies, but will be considering these in its review of associated policies and guidelines.

(5) The Office does not currently articulate career pathways in current policies and procedures, but will be considering these in its review of associated policies and guidelines.

(6) The Office does not have any specific targets for recruitment & retention, but will be considering these in its review of associated policies and guidelines.

(7) The Ombudsman's Disability Action Plan and the Workplace Diversity Framework and Plan are targeted at preventing actions or practices that are unfair, discriminatory or illegal, by embedding an anti-discrimination culture. A supportive environment for staff is fostered by the office.

(8) While our Disability Action Plan formally covered the period to 2008, the Office continues to use this plan and principles it contains, and are committed to reviewing this and other related strategies in the near future.

Australian Institute of Family Studies

(1) 69 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There is one employee who has identified as having a disability.

(3) The Institute's Disability Action Plan encourages recruitment of people with a disability through:

(4) The Institute's Disability Action Plan aims to retain people with a disability through:

(5) The Institute's Disability Action Plan encourages the identification of career development needs and opportunities for people for inclusion in performance management plans.

(6) The Institute does not currently have any specific targets for the recruitment and retention of people with a disability though these may be included in future plans.

(7) The Institute's Disability Action Plan provides support for people with a disability through:

(8) The Institute does not currently have any policies, programs, services or plans under development concerning the employment of people with a disability.

Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General

(1) 92 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There is one employee who has identified as having a disability.

(3) The Office has a draft Recruitment and Retention Strategy that will be submitted at the next meeting of the Workplace Consultative Committee meeting (which is scheduled for 11th May 2011) for consultation with all employees. This strategy will accommodate all target groups.

(4) Retention strategies are incorporated into the draft Recruitment and Retention Strategy.

(5) There is limited opportunity for career progression for all employees within a small agency.

(6) There are no specific targets for recruitment and retention. People with a disability or other target groups are not excluded they are considered as part of the normal process and the Office would take action to accommodate any specific requirements.

(7) The Office has in place good OHS procedures and facilities to accommodate and support all staff.

(8) Incorporated into the Office draft Recruitment and Retention Strategy.

Australian Public Service Commission

(1) 263 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are 16 employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) People with disability are encouraged to apply; reasonable adjustments are available as part of the selection process

(4) Reasonable adjustment and assistive technology, equal access to training and career development opportunities, access to flexible working arrangements

(5) There are no specific career pathways or plans for people with disability within the Commission. All Commission employees are able to plan their career development needs within the context of the performance management system.

(6) There are no specific targets for the recruitment and retention of people with disability in the Commission. While the Commission believes that there is always room for improving current practices and policies regarding the recruitment and retention of people with disability, targets are not currently under consideration as a means of improving the Commission's own performance. The Commission's representation of people with disability in its workforce has ranged from 9.4 percent to 9.6 percent over the past three years.

(7) The Commission encourages staff with disability to communicate their needs for adjustments and assistive technology that will enable them to perform at their full capacity. The Commission accesses assistance through initiatives such as the Employer Assistance Fund (administered by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations) for financial help with the cost of workplace modifications and services. The Commission also works closely with disability employment service providers when recruiting and supporting employees with disability.

(8) The Commission is currently drafting its Disability Action Plan for comment from employees, and as part of its membership of the Australian Network on Disability continues to look at ways of improving its performance in this area. The Commission also continues to work with disability employment service providers to improve the attraction and recruitment of people with disability into the workforce.

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

(1) 84 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are no employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) The OAIC has a workplace diversity plan in place encouraging the employment of persons with disabilities. Principles of reasonable adjustment are included in the OAIC's selection processes. The website is designed to be accessible to persons with visual impairments; TTY facilities are also available for the provision of selection criteria. The OAIC is co-located with the Australian Human Rights Commission, which provides corporate services, specialist employment advice and is an active participant in the employers forum for people with disabilities.

(4) The OAIC has fully accessible premises and has flexible working arrangements embedded in the Certified Agreement.

(5) There are no specific pathways or career plans in place targeting people with disabilities. The OAIC is a small organisation which was only formed 7 months ago and this is an area where policies are yet to be developed.

(6) There are no specific targets for recruitment and retention of people with disabilities. The OAIC is a small organisation which was only formed seven months ago and this is an area where policies are yet to be developed.

(7) Principles of reasonable adjustment apply as do flexible working arrangements. The Employee Assistance Program provides an employer funded counselling service to staff.

(8) There are currently no policies, plans or services under development concerning the employment of people with disabilities

Office of National Assessments

(1) 148 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are three employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) The ONA Workplace Diversity Program and Disability Action Plan ensure that all employment applicants receive fair and equitable treatment in the staff selection process.

(4) ONA's Disability Action Plan and Workplace Diversity Program ensure that there is no disability discrimination in ONA's administrative policies, facilities and services. The strategies focus on addressing the needs of people with disabilities in order to maximise retention.

(5) ONA's Workplace Diversity Program outlines its commitment to addressing employment equity, career development and opportunities for advancement.

(6) No. ONA's Workplace Diversity Program and the ONA Disability Action Plan aim to ensure that there is a level playing field while adhering to the merit principle.

(7) ONA's Disability Action Plan and Workplace Diversity Program.

(8) ONA's procurement processes actively seek to acquire services available through Australian Disability Enterprises.

Australian National Audit Office

(1) 359 as at 30 April 2011.

(2) There are two employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) The ANAO has a Workplace Diversity Program 2009-2011. The Program supports diversity in the workplace and provides support for staff, including those with disabilities.

(4) There are no specific retention strategies in place for staff with disabilities.

(5) Staff with disabilities are encouraged to apply for promotions and opportunities within the ANAO and individualised support is provided if requested.

(6) No, the ANAO does not have targets for recruitment and retention. The ANAO has a staffing profile and recruits employees through merit-based processes, taking into account the principle of reasonable adjustment.

(7) Staff who identify themselves as having a disability are assisted in whatever way is most effective in providing them with the work environment to allow them to carry out their work.

(8) The ANAO's policy is to provide personalised services and support to staff with disabilities that meet their particular requirements.

Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House

(1) 102 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are no employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) OPH complies with general APS employment policies and guidelines but has no specific policies or programs in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) OPH has no specific retention strategies in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(5) Given its status as a small, stand-alone Executive Agency, OPH has no separate career pathways or plans designed and intended specifically for persons with a disability.

(6) Given its status as a small, stand-alone Executive Agency, OPH has no specific targets for recruitment and retention of persons with a disability.

(7) Given the absence at present of any staff with disabilities, and its status as a small, stand-alone Executive Agency, OPH has no dedicated policies, programs or services in place to support staff with a disability. However, building accessibility and facilities have recently been improved for the benefit of any visitors and staff who might have a physical disability.

(8) Nil.

Australian Film, Television and Radio School

(1) 112 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are two employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) Relevant policies to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability include the EEO Policy, the Disability Discrimination Policy and recruitment policies.

(4) Individual plans are based on the needs of the staff member e.g. provision of voice activated software or an ongoing relationship with an external support agency.

(5) No specific plans. Support through the usual annual performance agreement process.

(6) AFTRS operates a merit based recruitment process with the exception of one position which is identified for a person with an intellectual disability.

(7) No specific policies, programs or services. Assistance provided as necessary.

(8) None under development.

Screen Australia

(1) 134 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are no employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) There are no specific policies or programs in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) Not applicable.

(5) Not applicable.

(6) No. Screen Australia operates a merit based recruitment process.

(7) Not applicable.

(8) None currently available.

Australian National Maritime Museum

(1) 132 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are four employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) None, although the recruitment policies and practices are non-discriminatory.

(4) No formal retention strategies are in place.

(5) Currently the ANMM does not have a specific disability career plan. However, it has a Disability Action Plan and is committed to implementing it.

(6) No, although the recruitment policies and practices we have are non-discriminatory.

(7) A Disability Action Plan.

(8) We are considering an initial draft Reasonable Adjustment Policy developed by the Australian Network on Disability, of which we are a silver member.

National Film and Sound Archive of Australia

(1) 232 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are seven employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) The Workplace Diversity Program 2011-2013, under the NFSA People and Culture Strategy which incorporates a 'Strategy for the employment of people with disability'.

(4) The NFSA People and Culture Strategy promotes an organisational culture and work environment which ensures compliance with the APS Values of providing a workplace free from discrimination and promoting equity in employment.

(5) The Workforce Planning and Development strategy identifies 'critical skills' and 'skills at risk'. It encompasses succession planning and workforce learning and development for all staff, to provide the relevant skills development in both their current role and desired future career path.

(6) All recruitment decisions are made on merit.

(7) Flexible recruitment strategies including accessible job advertisements and flexible selection processes; making reasonable adjustments to the workplace; allowing access to flexible working practices such as flexible working hours and job sharing; tailoring training programs to individual needs; and the NFSA Collective Agreement provides for the reimbursement of medical aides for staff, such as visual and hearing aids.

(8) The draft Workplace Diversity Program 2011-2013 provides details of NFSA policies related to the employment of people with disabilities.

National Gallery of Australia

(1) 329 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are five employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) The Recruitment and Selection Policy advises selection panels to take measures to eliminate any employment-related disadvantage on the basis of gender, race or ethnicity, or physical or mental disability.

The Reasonable Adjustment Policy provides a framework which enables applicants with disabilities to provide information to ensure that they can be safely accommodated during the selection process and provides ongoing support to staff once appointed.

The Diversity Plan aims to create a culture of encouraging diversity, by identifying and then lessening the barriers to diversity in the areas of attraction, recruitment, retention, development and performance management.

(4) The NGA aims to provide a welcoming, supportive environment for people with a disability including providing flexible work practices and learning options.

(5) Employees with a disability are afforded the same career opportunities as any other employee at the NGA.

(6) No, all appointments to the NGA are based exclusively on merit to ensure equal employment opportunities for all.

(7) The Reasonable Adjustment Policy provides ongoing support to staff with disabilities.

(8) No policies, programs, services or plans are currently under development.

National Museum of Australia

(1) 294 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are five employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) The NMA policies are consistent with the Australian Public Service Commission's report 'Employment of People with a Disability in the APS'.

(4) The NMA uses a range of measures to retain employees who have identified as having a disability and tailors responses that are appropriate to the individual's situation. Previously, the NMA has used the following services and strategies to assist in the retention of staff with disabilities: JobAccess and Jobs in Jeopardy, external mentors, workplace assessments and rehabilitation case managers. The NMA is also a member of the Australian Network on Disability.

(5) The NMA's Workplace Conversations process (performance management and development) is used to identify and assist individuals manage their personal career aspirations. The NMA has also accessed mentors for individual staff through the Australian Network on Disability.

(6) The NMA does not have a specific target for recruitment and retention of people with a disability. It has established a Disability Working Group as part of the broader Workplace Diversity Plan, with recruitment and retention targets currently under discussion.

(7) The NMA has established a Disability Working Group which oversees the review, development and implementation of policies, programs and services to support staff with a disability.

(8) The NMA's Disability Working Group is currently reviewing induction processes, developing strategies to increase awareness of disability issues, reviewing its rehabilitation policy and reviewing compliance with building codes.

Australia Council

(1) 120 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are two employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) The Cultural Engagement Framework: Arts & Disability Action Plan.

Equal Employment Opportunity Policy

Recruitment and Selection Policy

Equal opportunity e-learning module is provided as part of the employee induction program

TTY Relay Service is available for employees to communicate with potential candidates who have hearing and/or speech impairments via the telephone

(4) Public transport scheme

OHS: ergonomic assessments and training

Home-based work policy

Annual performance reviews

(5) The Australia Council's performance management framework allows for regular two-way communication between managers and their team members. This framework ensures effective and appropriate evaluation of the performance of employees, including those with a disability.

The Australia Council's SKILL UP! learning & development program allows for performance assessment and development opportunities to be catered to the skills of individual employees, including those with a disability.

(6) The Australia Council has an allocated permanent position for a person with an intellectual disability. There is currently an employee in this allocated position

(7) Home-based work policy

Remote accessibility of IT & information systems

Employee Assistance Program

Ergonomic workstation assessments and training

(8) The Australia Council Arts and Disability Action Plan 2011-2013 is currently under review.

Australian Business Arts Foundation

(1) 27 as at 27 April 2011.

(2) There are no employees who have identified as having a disability.

(3) There are no specific policies or programs to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability but AbaF would make every effort to ensure

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

asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

With reference to the department and the agencies within the Minister's portfolio:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.

(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why.

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not.

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

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

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

(1) As at 27 April 2011 the department had a total of 724 employees.

(2) As at 27 April 2011 16 departmental staff had voluntarily identified as having a disability.

(3) In my department a disability plan, a workplace diversity statement and a reasonable adjustment policy have been developed and implemented with the aims of ensuring that people with a disability are recruited, supported and retained. Actions that have been undertaken include:

(a) an independent audit of the recruitment process―to ensure that it does not discriminate against people with disability

(b) the establishment of a disability contact officer

(c) actively encouraging people with a disability to apply for positions

(d) the reasonable adjustment of recruitment processes (when required)

(e) becoming a silver member of the Australian Network on Disability

(f) encouraging the use of JobAccess and disability employment providers

(g) the creation of the disability section of the department's intranet site. Providing managers and staff with access to a range of information, resources and support available to assist with the employment of people with a disability.

(4) The retention strategies in place focus on developing an inclusive culture and providing support for staff with a disability. Actions implemented in my department include:

(a) the establishment of a Senior Executive Service (SES) officer as the Disability Champion

(b) access to a mentor specifically for staff with a disability

(c) options for reasonable adjustment of duties

(d) the provision of assistive technology on request

(e) access to flexible working arrangements

(f) raising awareness with staff generally about the implications of living with disability

(g) celebrating relevant events such as International Day of People with Disability.

(5) Career planning for all staff in my department is incorporated into the performance management process.

(6) No, there are no specific targets for recruitment and retention.

(a) Recruitment strategies are focused on encouraging people with a disability to apply for positions and ensuring that they are not disadvantaged by the recruitment process. Given the size of the department it would be administratively costly and impractical to put in place the type of initiatives that would support reaching targets.

(b) Retention strategies are focused on promoting a culture that is supportive and inclusive of people with disability. At present there is very low turnover of staff with a disability in my department and a target is not necessary.

(7) The disability plan, a workplace diversity statement and a reasonable adjustment policy have been implemented to support staff with a disability. Measures that have been implemented as a result of these plans and policies include:

(a) access to diversity and harassment contact officers

(b) the establishment of a Senior Executive Service (SES) officer as the Disability Champion

(c) access to a mentor specifically for staff with a disability

(d) options for reasonable adjustment of duties

(e) the provision of assistive technology on request

(8) There are currently no new policies, plans, strategies or initiatives being developed.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

With reference to the department and the agencies within the Minister's portfolio:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.

(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why.

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not.

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

The Department will respond to the Senator's question for the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and its portfolio agency, the National Capital Authority.

(1) Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government

As at 2 May 2011, the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government (the Department) had a headcount of 358 employees engaged under the Public Service Act 1999.

National Capital Authority

As at 30 April 2011, the National Capital Authority (NCA) had a headcount of 67 employees.

(2) Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government

As at 2 May 2011, the Department had 3 staff who identified as having a disability.

National Capital Authority

As at 30 April 2011, the NCA had 1 employee who identified as having a disability.

(3) Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government

Since its establishment in September 2010, the Department has been developing a full range of human resource strategies, policies and plans. A Diversity plan and Disability Employment strategy are expected to be completed in the second half of 2011.

National Capital Authority

Recruitment decisions in the NCA comply with all Commonwealth requirements including; the Public Service Act 1999, Public Service Commissioner's Directions 1999, Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Fair Work Act 2009.

The NCA has a Workplace Diversity Policy and Workplace Diversity Plan to assist in giving effect to the APS Values contained in section 10 of the Public Service Act 1999.

The Workplace Diversity Plan is based on the following principles:

As part of its commitment to be a model employer, which complies with all relevant laws and the Commonwealth Disability Strategy, the NCA has implemented the following policies and practices to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability:

an assessment is made of the relative suitability of the candidates for the duties, using a competitive selection process;

the assessment is based on the relationship between the candidates' work related qualities and the work related qualities genuinely required for the duties;

the assessment focuses on the relative capacity of the candidates to achieve outcomes related to the duties; and

the assessment is the primary consideration in making the decision.

identify as a person with a disability; and

note any special arrangements the applicant might require for interview.

(4) Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government

Since its establishment in September 2010, the Department has been developing a full range of human resource strategies, policies and plans. A Diversity plan and Disability Employment strategy are expected to be completed in the second half of 2011.

National Capital Authority

The NCA makes use of the following retention strategies:

learning and development required in order to carry out current duties/tasks for the current financial year;

professional development that relates to the employee's current work and/or work of the business unit; and

future career development

(5) Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government

As a relatively new Department, HR framework strategies and policies are being developed. Of these, the Diversity plan and Disability Employment strategy are a priority.

National Capital Authority

The NCA is a small APS agency of approximately 52 full-time equivalent staff with its statutory and regulatory functions defined under the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988.

The NCA requires a diverse range of skills from its workforce, primarily in the professional areas of urban planning, architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, corporate business and finance.

Because the NCA has an ongoing need to maintain a minimum level of specialised professional staff to perform its statutory responsibilities under the relevant legislation, it does not have a traditional career pathway for any of its employees, including opportunities for potential employees with a disability or our current employees with a disability that exists in larger APS agencies.

The NCA will continue to promote the agency as an employer who is committed to upholding the APS Values of providing a workplace free from discrimination and promoting equity in employment.

It will also continue to support the immediate and longer term career goals of its existing employees with a disability by providing access to ongoing learning and development needs and study assistance.

(6) Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government

Once it is developed the Department's Workplace Diversity plan and Disability Employment strategy will help determine appropriate specific targets

National Capital Authority

The NCA does not have any specific targets for recruitment or retention.

The NCA's employment practices are designed to ensure continual compliance with the law, government policies which provides that all NCA staff, including those who suffer from a disability, have the opportunity to effectively contribute their skills and full potential to the workforce.

(7) Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government

Since its establishment in September 2010, the Department has been developing a full range of human resource strategies, policies and plans. A diversity plan and disability employment strategy are expected to be completed in the second half of 2011.

National Capital Authority

As noted above, the NCA supports employees with a disability through:

(8) Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government

The Department diversity plan and disability employment strategy are currently being developed.

National Capital Authority

The NCA does not have any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development concerning employment of people with a disability.

The NCA will be reviewing its Workplace Diversity Policy and Workplace Diversity Plan in 2011-12.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.

(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why.

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not.

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

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) DIAC: As at 30 April 2011, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (including the Office of Migration Agents Registration Authority) employed 7 726 staff.

MRT-RRT: As at 30 April 2011, the Migration Review Tribunal-Refugee Review Tribunal (the tribunals) employed 272 staff.

(2) DIAC: As at 30 April 2011, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (including the Office of Migration Agents Registration Authority) had 163 employees who identify as having a disability.

MRT-RRT: As at 30 April 2011, the tribunals had 10 employees who identify as having a disability.

(3) DIAC: The department's Recruitment Policy guides selection panels to ensure processes do not disadvantage applicants with a disability. All Independent Committee Members receive awareness training on how to accommodate people with disability at interview and are guided by Australian Network on Disability (AND) resources made available as part of the department's membership. The department is soon to finalise a Reasonable Adjustment policy, developed in consultation with the Staff with Disability Network.

The department's Flexible Working Hours Strategy makes available the use of part-time employment, variable working hours, job sharing and home based work options.

The department launched a Workplace Diversity Strategy and supporting Implementation Plan 2011-13 on 15 March 2011. The strategy and plan identify people with disability as an area of priority in response to the downward trend in representation across the Australian Public Service. Initiatives within the plan seek to:

MRT-RRT: The tribunals support the employment of people with disability. Policies and programs in place include a Workplace Diversity Program and a Disability Action Plan. The tribunals accept applications from people with disability in different formats. The tribunals ensure that delegates and selection advisory committees are aware of the diverse needs of applicants with disability.

(4) DIAC: The Australian Network on Disability provides disability and mental health and well being awareness training for departmental supervisors and peers of staff with disability to ensure that the potential of these staff is realised. Further practical guidance and a framework for supporting employees with mental health issues is provided in the department's Mental Health Policy and Guidelines.

The department actively supports people with psychological issues in the workplace. These staff are assessed and supported by rehabilitation providers who liaise with their specialists and General Practitioners to ensure they remain active participants in the workplace.

The Workplace Implementation Plan 2011-13 includes initiatives to design and deliver a tailored mentoring program for employees with disability, and ensure all employees who identify as having a disability have a tailored career development program within their Performance Development Agreement.

MRT-RRT: The tribunals have a number of retention strategies in place for people with disability. Premises and facilities are accessible and useable by people with disability. Buildings provide level street access, are close to transport links and have facilities consistent with relevant laws and building codes. Flexible work arrangements are available to people with disability, including part-time employment and adjustments to hours of work. From time to time the tribunals provide training and/or awareness programs for managers and employees on mental health awareness.

(5) DIAC: The Workplace Diversity Implementation Plan 2011-13 includes initiatives to ensure all employees who identify as having a disability have a tailored career development program within their Performance Development Agreement, and make available appropriate reasonable adjustment (eg interpreters, captioning, loops, other assistive technology) to staff with disability to ensure they access learning and development opportunities.

MRT-RRT: Career progression for people with a disability is available within the tribunals. Employees with a disability have opportunities to undertake training and study to improve their skills, to exercise team leadership roles and to seek transfers and promotions.

(6) DIAC: The Australian Public Service Commission has not identified specific targets for commonwealth agencies. The department is working towards increasing its representation of employees with disability. The Workplace Diversity Implementation Plan 2011-13 states that the department aspires to meet the goal of the Australian Public Service average benchmark of three per cent representation.

MRT-RRT: The tribunals do not have specific targets for the recruitment and retention of people with a disability as the Australian Public Service Commission does not specify any specific targets. However the Tribunals do report internally against the Australian Public Service average and is currently above the Australian Public Service average of three per cent with a representation of 3.7 per cent.

(7) DIAC: The department provides appropriate assistive technology or other access required by people disclosing a disability, and utilises government funded programs such as Job Access to ensure employees have appropriate access or adjustments to undertake their duties. Specialist disability agencies consult with the department and make recommendations for specific newly engaged employees.

A Staff with Disability Network was created in November 2010. The network provides the opportunity for staff with disability to share information, raise strategic issues and consult on policy and programs under development.

The department's Mental Health Policy and Guidelines provide information to ensure staff with mental health issues are well supported and maximise their potential in the workplace.

The National Injury Prevention and Management Plan ensures that staff with injuries are identified and appropriately managed so as to limit deterioration in conditions, where possible. The Caring for our Colleagues policy enables departmental supervisors and co-workers to provide coordinated timely and sensitive support to departmental employees who have a life-threatening illness, or who are caring for a person with such an illness.

MRT-RRT: The tribunals have a range of policies, programs and services to support staff with a disability, including a Workplace Diversity Program, a Disability Action Plan and flexible work arrangements such as part-time employment and adjustments to hours of work.

(8) DIAC: The department regularly meets with other APS agencies and key disability stakeholders to keep informed of best practice initiatives, programs and strategies. The department will be guided by future policy actions in the National Disability Strategy, launched in February 2011.

The Workplace Diversity Implementation Plan 2011-13 seeks to develop a Disability Action Plan to address levels of accountability within the department, and manage any obstacles to full participation for employees and clients with disability. Another initiative within the plan will see the inclusion of disability awareness materials and inclusive messages within learning and development programs for supervisors, managers and new staff.

MRT-RRT: No additional policies, programs, services or plans are currently under development within the tribunals concerning the employment of people with a disability

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.

(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why.

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not.

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

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

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

(1) The total number of staff employed by the Department is 961.

(2) The total number of staff with a disability currently employed by the Department is 25. Note that this represents 2.6% of employees as identifying as having a disability.

(3) The Department has a Workplace Diversity and Equity Strategy for 2011-2015 that is committed to achieving a target of 3% of employees as identifying as having a disability.

(4) The Department does not have specific retention strategies for people with a disability.

(5) The Department's 2011-2015 Workplace Diversity and Equity Strategy is the underpinning policy framework for developing plans for people with a disability.

(6) By 2015, the Department is committed to achieving a 3% target of employees identifying as having a disability.

(7) Under the Department's Workplace Diversity and Equity Strategy for 2011-2015, existing measures will be reviewed and new initiatives will be developed to support staff with a disability.

(8) The Department's 2011-2015 Workplace Diversity and Equity Strategy is the underpinning policy framework for developing plans for people with a disability.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed?

(2) What is the total number of staff with disability currently employed?

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with disability?

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with disability?

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with disability; if none, why?

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not?

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability?

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies concerning the employment of people with disability?

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

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

(1) As at 31 March 2011, the total department headcount was 5355. This includes ongoing, non-ongoing and casual staff.

(2) As at 31 March 2011, 226 departmental staff self-identified.

(3) The department's recruitment guidelines outline processes for Panels where applicants are able to request reasonable adjustments to be made available at time of interview.

The department liaises with Disability Employment Service Providers (DESPs) to recruit people with disability in ongoing and non-ongoing positions.

The department is a gold member of the Australian Network on Disability and participates in the Australian Network on Disability's Stepping Into program.

The department is also participating in the Paralympic Workplace Diversity Program run by 360 HR in collaboration with the Australian Paralympic Committee.

The department has a current Disability Workforce Action Plan which it has been implementing and is also revising for 2011-2013.

The department encourages the procurement of goods and services under the revised Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines. This demonstrates a commitment to supporting the recruitment and retention of people with disability in the private sector.

(4) Engagement of people with disability who are unable to compete in a merit-based selection process as outlined in the Australian Public Service Commissioner's directions (APSC Circular 2010/2). The department is establishing new HR delegations and is piloting a process to implement the Circular.

The appointment of a Disability Champion at the SESB2 level to advocate for, support and encourage retention of Staff with disability.

Undertaking and hosting disability confidence training for staff in other Agencies and DoHA.

The Reasonable Adjustment policy is regularly updated to reflect changes in legislation and organisational structure and feedback from staff with disability.

A Staff with Disability Network has been established and is developing a formal awards process to recognise the achievements of staff with disability, their managers and/or colleagues, it is also supporting its members and building awareness to ensure retention.

The department implements a Disability Workforce Action Plan.

The department has specific Staff with Disability representatives on the People Committee and the National Staff Participation Forum.

(5) Staff with disability are offered additional Studybank provisions for completion of work-related study.

Staff with disability are encouraged to apply for corporate roles such as Workplace Harassment Contact Officers, First Aid Officers, Fire Wardens, Health and Safety Representatives.

The department has specifically engaged staff with cognitive disability to give them employment and career opportunity within the Corporate Support function.

The department has staff with disability across its classifications and currently demonstrates that staff can progress despite their disability.

(6) The department consults the Australian Network on Disability regarding recruitment and retention strategies. The Australian Network on Disability does not subscribe to employment targets.

The APSC has not set any targets for Agencies to meet however DoHA has been identified in the State of the Service as having good representation of staff with disability.

(7) An SESB2 officer has been appointed as the senior level advocate (Disability Champion) for staff with disability. As Disability Champion, she listens to staff and advocates for their needs to the department's Executive and managers. She also educates the department's staff through regular communication messaging and information channels. The department's Disability Champion is a board member on the Australian Network on Disability.

The Staff with Disability Network was established in 2010. The Network is centrally funded and is currently operating with more than 100 members. The Network convenes an annual forum for members and a Network Executive Committee has been established to guide network activities. The Network objectives are to:

Staff are actively encouraged to update their disability status on SAP ESS. Staff who have identified with disability on SAP receive regular communication from the Disability Champion.

The Disability Workforce intranet page is regularly updated and promoted to staff.

The department offers regular information sessions to all staff on understanding the needs of people with disability; dispelling myths surrounding disability; and raising staff awareness of the etiquette of offering assistance to people with disability. Sessions also include managing and working with staff with disability.

A disability representative has been appointed to the National Staff Participative Forum (NSPF), the NSPF Bullying and Harassment Working Group and the People Committee. Proxy's have also been identified.

With the assistance of the Staff with Disability Network, International Day of People with Disability was celebrated nationally in December 2010.

The Reasonable Adjustment policy was reviewed and launched. The reviewed Policy included input from staff with disability, the Australian Network on Disability and was provided to each Business Management Unit for implementation.

Use of and purchase of specific equipment to support staff including, for instance, use of hearing loops for staff briefings, interpreters etc.

(8) The department and its Portfolio agencies have a number of policies, programs and services that will continue and ongoing in 2011 such as:

The department is currently developing a formal workplace policy to support work areas to hire Auslan Interpreters for a range of corporate events as appropriate.

The department is reviewing outsourced activities to identify if insourcing using staff with disability (ie cognitive disability) is an option.

The department ensures staff with disability, as one of a number of diversity groups, is specifically identified in the Staff Survey. A specific report and analysis of their results is provided annually and used to understand areas for attention and improvement.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

With reference to the department and the agencies within the Minister's portfolio:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.

(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why.

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not.

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

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

The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) 5410

(2) 137

(3), (4) and (7): There are a range of policies and programs in place in the department and the agencies within the portfolio to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability and to retain those staff. For example, the Department of Sustainability. Environment, Water. Population and Communities has developed a Disability Action Plan 2009-2011 to encourage the recruitment and retention of people with a disability and this is supported by the department's recruitment policy and procedures. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is guided by the Commonwealth Disability Strategy and has a specific Workplace Diversity Program Action Plan. The National Water Commission is an equal opportunity employer. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has a Disability Strategy which includes a range of initiatives to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability, including flexible working arrangements. Within the Bureau of Meteorology, diversity policies and plans such as the Workplace Diversity Program, Disability Action Plan and Enterprise Agreement are promoted and accessible to inform both employees and candidates. Education for employees in anti-discrimination legislation is promoted to all employees and successful completion rates are monitored.

(5) and (6) The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, and its portfolio agencies, are guided by the Australian Public Service Commission publications, including Ability at Work — Tapping the Talent of People with Disability.

(8) The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities' Disability Action Plan 2009-2011 is currently under review, with a new plan to be available from 2012. Policies and procedures will be reviewed to support the new plan. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is reviewing its recruitment policy and procedures. The Bureau of Meteorology's Workplace Diversity Program 2011-2014 is soon to be released and a Disability Action Plan review will follow.

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

asked the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

With reference to the department and the agencies within the Minister's portfolio:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.

(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why.

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not.

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

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) 1651 (ongoing as at 30 April 2011)

(2) 27 (ongoing as at 30 April 2011).

(3) The Finance Diversity Strategy and Framework 2010-2012 aims to increase representation and support for four identified groups, one of which is people with disability.

(4) to (8) Finance is currently developing a Disability Action Plan (anticipated to be approved and implemented by 30 June 2011).

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

asked the asked the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, upon notice , on 27 April 2011:

With reference to the department and the agencies within the Minister's portfolio:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.

(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability?

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not. why.

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

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 s enator's question is as follows:

(1) and (2)

Department of Innovation

Answer:

(3) Innovation has a merit based recruitment policy and provides for reasonable adjustment during the selection process for people with a disability . Prospective employees are invited to advise the department of any assistance which it can provide during the interview process.

(4) There are no specific, retention strategies in place aimed at employees with a disability at this time.

(5) Individual development plans are put in place for all employees and are based on individual circumstances and particular needs . No special arrangements exist for people with a disability as they would be expected to identify issues with their manager with appropriate support action put in place.

(6) There are no specific targets set in relation to people with a disability at this time . In general the department does not set targets for employment of any group of employees.

(7) All construction and buildings are maintained in accordance with the Disability Code, with the following departmental policies in place to make reasonable adjustments in the workplace for people with a disability.

Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy

Harassment Contact Officers

Employee Assistance Program

Hours of Work and Flextime Policy

In addition all staff receive a workplace assessment on commencement with the department to ensure any issue is identified and addressed.

(8) The Department is currently examining what support and initiatives it may pursue in relation to people with a disability. A disability strategy including mental health has been scoped and work is commencing on full development and implementation.

The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS)

Answer:

(3)(i) Annual Report 2009/2010 summarises AIMS ' position on EEO & Workplace Diversity

(ii) AIMS Diversity Policy

(4) Staff with a disability are supported in the workplace as follows:

(i) Workplace modifications, i.e. ergonomic improvements to assist in conduct of duties (seating, work station set up, light, sound etc), access.

(ii) Employee Assistance Program Procedure – which provides confidential counselling and support at no cost to staff, family members and authorised visitors

(iii) AIMS Diversity & Workplace Bullying, Discrimination and Harassment Policies and Workplace Bullying, Discrimination Harassment Procedure

(iv) Harassment Contact Officers available to assist staff / visitors

(v) Equity in appointment, tr aining and allocation of duties

(5) AIMS does not have specific pathways or plans available for people with a disability but does not select against people with a disability . AIMS is a research organisation and encourages a diverse workplace based on equity – this includes staff appointments; reward review processes; acceptance of visitors (volunteers); training and the allocation of duties . Where additional support is identified staff appropriate workplace assessment and / or modifications are undertaken.

(6) AIMS has a diverse workforce and in addition hosts a range of visitors (volunteers) to assist our science and research activities from many different overseas countries, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. AIMS ' believes that the principles of equity in diversity promote a work environment that supports not only those staff with a disability but helps to promote the status of women and those from non English speaking backgrounds etc . AIMS ' promotes its workplaces as being free of discrimination and harassment and values equity and merit in the conduct of its activities.

(7) AIMS Diversity Policy

AIMS Workplace Bullying, Discrimination and Harassment Policy

AIMS Workplace Bullying, Discrimination and Harassment Procedure

AIMS Employee Assistance Program Procedure

Flexible workplace arrangements – See Section 3 AIMS Diversity Policy

AIMS Workforce Diversity Management Plan (to be developed)

(8) See AIMS Workplace Diversity Policy Section 3 . An AIMS Workplace Diversity Management Plan is to be developed

The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS )

Answer:

(3) AIATSIS follows the recommendations made by APSC and the Disability Discrimination Act . The Institute to incorporate the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 into its policies and guidelines.

AIATSIS is also committed to supporting staff with disabilities and ensures that all programs and services are accessible to people with disabilities.

AIATSIS is also committed to ensuring recruitment processes encourage people with disabilities to apply for AIATSIS positions.

As part of the recruitment process for all positions we ask that applicants complete a cover sheet to outline any special requirements, from this we can provide any assistance as required and arrange future support as needed;

(4) The Institute is committed to incorporating the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 into its policies and guidelines.

This is done on an individual or case by case basis as well as part of the annual performance agreement process.

If needed the HR Manager is involved to establish an individual program or plan with liaison with other relevant external agencies, including but not limited to Comcare, the Australian Public Service Commission and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

(5) This is done on an individual basis as well as part of the annual performance agreement process .

HR Manager may become involved in establishing an individual program or plan a consulting with other relevant external agencies, including but not limited to Comcare, the Australian Public Service Commission and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

(6) Within limits, all positions with AIATSIS are identified.

The Institute is also committed to incorporating the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

(7) The Institute is referencing and applying the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 into its policies and guidelines.

Special needs requirements are identified at engagement as detailed above. Performance agreements, individual case management from HR and the Employee Assistance Program assist with ongoing support .

Our facilities co-ordinator is tasked to ensure all aspects of the facility and work area meet requirements . This has included the provision of appropriate computer software for voice activated desktop work, a central building lift and ramp for wheelchair access along with disabled toilets at various locations around the building .

Most recently the Institute has installed hearing impaired amplifiers in the Mabo Meeting room, this will enable employees and visitors with hearing aids to directly receive any sound that goes through the room speakers when attending AIATSIS seminars or meetings.

For individual and more specific needs covering support and equipment the HR Manager may become involved to establish an individual program or plan with liaison with other relevant agencies, including Comcare, the Australian Public Service Commission and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

(8) AIATSIS will be developing a Disability Action Plan, currently in draft form.

The Australian Research Council (ARC)

Answer:

(3) Workplace Diversity Policy.

(4) None specified.

(5) None specified because no employees currently identified.

(6) None currently targeted. Only 116 staff in total.

(7) Workplace Diversity Policy. The building and other facilities are suitable f or employees with a disability.

(8) Workplace Diversity Policy currently under review but employment of people with a disability not currently a target area.

IP Australia

Answer:

(3) IP Australia has taken informal steps to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability which has resulted in the attraction and retention of several staff with disabilities who are now long serving, well regarded members of staff.

In addition to this IP Australia provides the foll owing assistance for applicants:

(4) IP Australia has retained staff with disabilities through our careful approach to the management of issues as they arise and the commitment of managers to see that new starters with a disability have all that they need to do their best in the new role.

We customise the approach which is taken for all new starters, assessing their work environment and responding to any concerns they might have about their workplace.

(5) IP Australia is in the early stages of developing comprehensive workforce plans for all of our operating Groups .

(6) No . IP Australia has managed this issue with some success without the need for quotas .

(7) Our policies ensure that a formal plan is drawn up outlining any reasonable adjustment measures required in relation to duties, and treatment, for any staff member with a disability.

We provide the necessary equipment, access to counselling and individual case management services to any staff who require it in relation to their wellbeing at work.

(8) IP Australia is in the early stages of developing comprehensive workforce plans for all of our operating Groups .

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)

Answer:

(3) CSIRO has a merit based recruitment policy which ensures the best applicant is selected regardless of any disability . CSIRO communication material encourages applications from people with a disability and makes special arrangements for selection arrangements, including interviews, as necessary . A dedicated team of recruitment specialists ensures consistency of practice and accessibility of information. The CSIRO values and Code of Conduct ensure workplaces are welcoming to all staff.

(4) No specific needs have been identified through CSIRO exit surveys that require the development of a retention strategy for people with a disability.

(5) CSIRO provides career planning and development to all staff in line with their individual needs . There has been no need identified for a different program for staff with a disability . Development programs are conducted at venues that cater to the needs of participants with disabilities. Web training resources are reviewed to ensure access for all CSIRO staff .

(6) No . This is being considered through deliberations on diversity issues in CSIRO.

(7) CSIRO undertakes reasonable adjustments to the workplace to prospective and current employees so that inherent requirements of the job can be satisfied . This includes modification to the workplace, special technology or other forms of assistance .

(8) CSIRO is reviewing this area as part of its consideration of diversity issues in the organisation.

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)

Answer:

(3) ANSTO has policies addressing the recruitment process involving disabled applicants . Specifically, these policies require that reasonable adjustments and accommodations are made for applicants with a disability . Preparations are under way to develop specific policies and/or programs to encourage recruitment of people with a disability. This will form part of an overall Diversity Strategy currently being developed by ANSTO.

(4) ANSTO ensures that disabled employees are covered under the general retention strategies in place for all employees. The retention of people with a disability is also a key issue under further consideration within ANSTO ' s workforce planning strategy.

(5) ANSTO offers opportunities for candidates with disabilities through a series of career pathway programs such as the Work Experience Program, Summer Vacation & Year in Industry Internships, the Graduate Development Program and Post Doctoral Fellowships .

ANSTO has historically ensured and will continue to ensure that adjustments are made to accommodate candidates with disabilities to ensure that they may participate in these programs.

(6) While ANSTO has not set any specific targets for recruiting candidates with disabilities, the organisation ensures that reasonable measures are put into place to support disabled cand idates.

(7) ANSTO has an on-site Medical Centre staffed with a qualified occupational health physician and two qualified occupational nurses . The Medical Centre provides workplace assessment, recommendations and facilitation of reasonable adjustments to accommodate disabled workers, and offers ongoing support for staff members with a disability.

(8) As part of ANSTO ' s infrastructure plan, a steering committee is dedicated to the review of site/building access and is responsible for considering improvements to disabled access on the ANSTO site for both staff and visitors . ANSTO also has staff responsible for reviewing all proposals for new buildings or building alterations to ensure disab led access has been considered.

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

asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.

(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why.

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not.

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

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

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

(1) As at 27 April 2011 the total number of staff currently employed by the department is 5329.

(2) As at 27 April the total number of staff who have identified as having a disability is 71.

(3) People with a disability are encouraged to apply for all positions. The online application process allows applicants to indicate whether or not they have a disability and if so asks them to advise of any assistance they may require. Contact information is provided should the applicant wish to discuss matters in relation to their disability and the assistance they require. The department collects data via the online recruitment system on the number of applicants who disclose a disability.

(4) The department's Diversity Strategy 2010-11 and its associated employment plans aim to support the employment of people with a disability. The department has in place methods to ensure selection panels are aware of the diverse needs of applicants with a disability and to ensure that processes do not indirectly discriminate against people with a disability.

The department has in place a number of initiatives that support the retention of employees with disability. These include access to reasonable adjustment and assistive technology, access to flexible working arrangements, equality of access to training and career development opportunities and participation in the department's Disability Network. The department celebrates key events such as International Day of People with a Disability and participates in activities such as conferences on matters relating to disability.

(5) All employees are provided with equal opportunity to access the department's suite of learning programs including leadership development programs. All employees participate in the department's performance management system which has a strong focus on the identification of learning needs in a career development context.

(6) The department does not have any specific targets. The department is awaiting the outcome of any whole of government decisions made in relation to targets.

(7) The department has the following policies, programs and services in place to support employees with a disability:

(8) The department intends to pilot a traineeship for people with Intellectual Disability to commence in 2011-2012. The trainees will be selected under the arrangements provided for in the Commissioner's Directions and will undertake Certificate II in Administration. The department will work in close partnership with disability service providers to ensure appropriate support is provided to the trainees. Supervisors of the trainees will undertake specific training in ways to support an employee with an intellectual disability.

The department will revise its diversity governance instruments with the view to refresh the Diversity Strategy 2010-2011. The new strategy will be developed in consultation with the People Management Committee and the six employee networks that operate within the department. An action based approach with clear performance indicators will be a key focus of the new strategy.

The department will continue to participate in the APS Disability Network and will work closely with the Australian Public Service Commission and other agencies to share ways of improving the attraction, retention and development of employees with disability.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.

(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why.

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not.

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

(1) The number of staff employed by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (RET) on 27 April 2011 was 521.

The number of staff employed by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA) on 27 April 2011 was 61.

The number of staff employed by Geoscience Australia (GA) on 27 April 2011 was 770.

The number of staff employed by Tourism Australia (TA) on 27 April 2011 was 222.

The number of staff employed by the Australian Solar Institute (ASI) on 27 April 2011 was 6.

(2) The number of staff employed by RET that identified as having a disability on 27 April 2011 was 6.

The number of staff employed by NOPSA that identified as having a disability on 27 April 2011 was 0.

The number of staff employed by GA that identified as having a disability on 27 April 2011 was 4.

The number of staff employed by TA that identified as having a disability on 27 April 2011 was 0.

The number of staff employed by ASI that identified as having a disability on 27 April 2011 was 0.

(3) Resources, Energy and Tourism: RET recruitment practices have respect to obligations under the Fair Work ACT 1999. the Disability Discrimination ACT 1992 and the Public Service ACT 1999 including the Public Service Commissioner's directions.

National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority: NOPSA complies with the Public Service Act 1999, the Public Service Regulations 1999 and the Public Service Commissioner's Directions. NOPSA advertises widely and provides the opportunity for all eligible members of the Australian community to apply. Employment decisions are based on merit and capability of the applicant to undertake the duties of the position

Geoscience Australia: GA's current recruitment process is merit based and as such, eligible applicants with a disability are welcome to apply. A specific section of the job application documentation provides applicants with an opportunity to identify whether they have a disability and whether they have special needs that should be considered during the recruitment process.

Tourism Australia: TA advertises all permanent vacancies externally and recruits strictly on a merit basis. As such, qualified applicants with a disability are welcome to apply.

Australian Solar Institute: ASI recruitment practices are merit based and comply with all applicable laws and standards

(4) All staff at are treated equally with recruitment and retention strategies being applicable to all staff irrespective of capacity. All staff are provided with a flexible workplace, flexible hours and modifications are made to workstations as required.

(5) All staff within the portfolio are treated equally and have access to training and assistance with career management.

(6) Recruitment is undertaken on a merit selection model and retention strategies apply to all staff.

(7) Resources, Energy and Tourism: RET provides workstation assessments, specialist IT equipment, car parking assistance, access to an Employee Assistance Program, family assistance arrangements, flexible working hours.

National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority: NOPSA provides a flexible workplace, flexible hours and modifications are made to workstations as required.

Geoscience Australia: Geoscience Australia provides all staff with equality in their working environment. In the event an employee has a disability or special needs in order to perform their duties, the Rehabilitation, Compensation and Occupational Health and Safety Manager is available to facilitate provision of support for those staff members. The Geoscience Australia building is compliant with all prevailing codes relating to parking, access and provision of facilities for individuals with a disability.

Tourism Australia: Tourism Australia provides all staff with equality in their working environment. In the event an employee has a disability or special needs in order to perform their duties, professional assessment and support services to permit an adjustment of the work environment or duties are provided.

Australian Solar Institute: The ASI provides all staff with equality and flexibility in the workplace. The ASI is committed to adopting the highest professional standards and complying with all applicable laws and standards in a discrimination free environment.

(8) Resources, Energy and Tourism: All policies and services are current.

National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority: All policies and services are current.

Geoscience Australia: All staff, with a disability or otherwise have access to Geoscience Australia initiatives that are currently in place such as workstation assessments, health promotion activities (e.g. flu shots, health checks) and rehabilitation case management if required.

Tourism Australia: All policies and services are current.

Australian Solar Institute: All policies and services are current.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

With reference to the department and the agencies within the Minister's portfolio:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.

(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why.

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not.

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

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 total number of staff employed in the Department as at 27 April 2011 is 989 (includes 64 non-payroll employees).

(2) The total number of staff who have disclosed that they have a disability is nine.

(3) No specific recruitment programs are in place at this time. These are being considered in the draft disability strategy to be considered by the Executive Board shortly.

(4) No specific retention programs are in place at this time. These are being considered in the draft disability strategy to be considered by the Executive Board shortly.

(5) None at this time. These are being considered in the draft disability strategy.

(6) No. These will be considered in the draft disability strategy.

(7) The Department has prepared a draft disability strategy which is currently under consideration by its People Committee. Once approved by the People Committee it will be passed to the Department's Executive for approval and will be implemented.

(8) The draft disability strategy will contain arrangements for the recruitment, retention and career pathways of people with a disability.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, upon notice, on

27 April 2011:

With reference to the department and the agencies within the Minister's portfolio:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.

(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why.

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not.

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

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

The Minister for Human Services has provided the following answer to the honourable

senator's question:

(1) The Human Services portfolio (the portfolio) employed 38,173 staff as at 31 March 2011.

(2) 1,426 staff who identify as having a disability.

(3) The recruitment policies of the portfolio are very much focussed on the need to ensure that people with disability are given every opportunity to apply for jobs within the portfolio, in particular:

(4) The following retention strategies are in place:

(5)   People with disabilities can access the following career pathway programs including:

(6) No workforce targets for people with disability are currently set for the portfolio. However, the portfolio is currently performing well in this regard with ongoing and non-ongoing staffing rate of 3.7% which is above the APS representation of 3.4%. Our disability staffing rate is also monitored on a monthly basis by the Secretary and CEOs through the Portfolio People Metrics Scorecard. The portfolio undertakes a range of strategies to promote and support recruitment and retention of people with disability. The portfolio executive also monitor the number of staff employed with disability through monthly workforce reports. This information is benchmarked across the portfolio and against the Australian Public Service.

(7)   The following policies, programs or services are in place to support staff with a disability:

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

With reference to the department and the agencies within the Minister's portfolio:

(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.

(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.

(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.

(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.

(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why.

(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not.

(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.

(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.

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:

Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA):

(1) As at 1 May 2011 DVA employed 2036 staff.

(2) As at 1 May 2011 35 staff identified themselves as having a disability.

(3); (4); (5); (7) and (8):

The DVA Workplace Diversity and Action Plan 2011-2015 is aimed at promoting diversity and encouraging employment of under-represented groups. It reinforces the relevant legislative framework, identifies key responsibilities for the employer, managers and employees, articulates principles and actions concerning leadership and recruitment, and offers practical support in the form of reasonable adjustment to assist people with a disability in the workplace.

In addition, a work experience program for people with a disability is currently being trialled in Western Australia and a position for a person with a disability has been identified in future graduate intakes. Complementing these measures, it has also recently been agreed that a separate Disability Employment Strategy be developed. DVA's Workforce Strategy 2010-2015 also commits DVA to "evaluating initiatives to attract and retain people from underrepresented groups" which echoes the Government's commitment in the Blueprint for the Reform of Australian Government Administration.

DVA's supportive work environment which encourages retention of staff with a disability includes:

(6) A specific target for disability employment has not been adopted, except in relation to graduate recruitment (as outlined in response to question 5 above). As there is currently no APS-wide target for disability employment, DVA, like the majority of agencies, does not consider it appropriate to adopt an arbitrary target. If there is an APS-wide target adopted in the future, like for Indigenous employment, DVA would incorporate that target into its related policies and strategies. DVA is committed to increasing the numbers of, and support for, under-represented groups, including people with disabilities, as evidenced through the recent launch of the DVA Workplace Diversity and Action Plan 2011-2015, the commitment to develop a Disability Employment Strategy and other initiatives outlined above.

Australian War Memorial (AWM) :

(1) As at 30 April 2011 the AWM employed 304 staff.

(2) As at 30 April 2011 seven staff identified themselves as having a disability.

(3) AWM Workplace Diversity Program 2010 – 2012.

(4) The AWM Workplace Diversity Program seeks to ensure that employees with disabilities are afforded opportunities to utilise their diverse skills. The program also aims to help employees with disabilities balance their work and personal life.

(5) AWM employees are encouraged to complete Personal Development Plans (PDPs) each year in consultation with their line managers. These PDPs are used to assist each member of staff in achieving their career goals.

(6) The AWM seeks to achieve a representation of employees with disabilities that either meets or exceeds the proportion of people identified as possessing a disability within the broader ACT community.

(7) The AWM Workplace Diversity Program provides support for staff with disabilities.

(8) The AWM Workplace Diversity Program will be reviewed in 2012.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 28 April 2011:

(1) Has there been any increase in the number of New Zealand fishing boats licensed to fish for Patagonian toothfish in the Ross Sea; if so, how has Australia responded to the increase.

(2) What actions have been taken in response to the call from the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources to make Ross Sea a marine protected area.

(3) What is the Minister's response to recent research suggesting that commercial fishing in the Ross Sea has led to an explosion in Adélie penguin numbers and decline in killer whale and Weddell seal numbers.

(4) What is Australia's position on commercial fishing in the Ross Sea if it were to become a protected marine park.

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

The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) No. There has been no increase in the number of New Zealand vessels fishing in the Ross Sea exploratory toothfish fisheries.

(2) The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Resources (CCAMLR) has not itself called for the Ross Sea to be declared a marine protected area. To date there has been no formal proposal put forward to CCAMLR, by any Member of the Commission, to designate the Ross Sea as a marine protected area.

The Commission has endorsed the World Summit on Sustainable Development target for a representative system of marine protected areas by 2012. The Commission has been working steadily towards achieving this goal with the first CCAMLR MPA declared in 2009 near the South Orkney Islands.

(3) I am aware of media reports of the research you refer to in your question.

CCAMLR's Scientific Committee provides scientific advice to the Commission on the management of the marine living resources of the CCAMLR Convention Area. The principles of the Convention on the Conservation of Marine Living Resources are based on the precautionary approach and seek to conserve Antarctic marine living resources and the integrity of the Southern Ocean ecosystem. Australia is committed to CCAMLR and contributes scientific expertise to the Scientific Committee. Australia actively works with members of the Commission to adopt measures to further the conservation objective of the Convention.

(4) Consistent with Australia's position on domestic marine protected areas, Australia considers that marine protected areas in the CCAMLR Area can include multiple use areas in which 'no take zones' and commercial activities, including fishing, can occur in an ecologically sustainable manner.

The principles of CCAMLR are based on the precautionary approach and seek to conserve Antarctic marine living resources and the integrity of the Southern Ocean ecosystem. The CCAMLR principles also serve to protect the long term viability of the marine living resources and commercial interests of fisheries in the Convention Area.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 28 April 2011:

With reference to the current and future bauxite mining projects of Alcoa in the Keysbrook area of the Darling Range in Western Australia: as a decision making authority under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, how has the Minister ensured that Alcoa are meeting the requirements of the Act with regard to the protection of black cockatoos and their habitat, which are listed as threatened under the Act.

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

The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

The Department has been corresponding with Alcoa in respect of its current and future operations in the Darling Range, and met with the company in February 2011. The mining operations commenced in the 1960s prior to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The area being mined is subject to a Regional Forestry Agreement. If the EPBC Act applies to any aspects of Alcoa's activities, the department will take appropriate action for the protection of matters of national environmental significance.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 2011:

With reference to the proposed carbon pricing mechanism, has the department conducted any research or modelling into what impact the proposed carbon pricing mechanism will have on the cost of new residential housing in Australia; if so, can full details of this research or modelling be provided; if not, why not.

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

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

Treasury is updating its economic modelling of the effect of a carbon price on the economy to inform the Australian Government’s decisions regarding the detailed design of the carbon price framework. The results of that modelling will depend upon the detailed design of the framework. The Australian Government has announced that it intends to release the modelling upon its completion, in order to further inform the community about the expected transformation of the Australian economy from pricing carbon. Lake Eyre Basin

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 5 May 2011:

With reference to the proposed wild rivers declaration sought by the Queensland Government in the Lake Eyre Basin:

(1) Given the oil and gas production, mining and the wool and cattle grazing industries that have been in operation within the basin for more than 100 years, can the Minister confirm that the Queensland wild rivers legislation, if passed, will not be a precursor to a World Heritage listing of the basin.

(2) Can the Minister confirm the Government will not support any listing of the basin without the support of the people who live, work and gain their living through the industries within the Lake Eyre catchment.

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

The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) There has been no nomination for World Heritage listing for the Lake Eyre Basin.

(2) See response to (1) above.

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 Home Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 2011:

(1) Can details be provided of the 3 month compliance campaign into low value imports, including the: (a) name; (b) objectives; (c) cost; and (d) outcomes, of the campaign.

(2) What impact did this have on the flow of overseas imports and their timely delivery.

(3) Was there any difficulty in the storage of held goods during the campaign.

(4) How many consumers were contacted about the goods they were importing during the campaign.

(5) How many parcels were determined to be non-compliant during the campaign, and what goods and services tax or duty was payable on these non-compliant items.

(6) (a) How many parcels declared to have a value less than $1 000 arrive each year; (b) how many are found to be non-compliant; and (c) how has this figure fluctuated over the past 10 years.

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

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

(1) (a) The national campaign is known as Enhanced Compliance – Import Threshold Campaign.

(b) The campaign objectives were to assess the extent to which:

(c) Campaigns are regularly under taken by Customs and Border Protection to assess the level of risk or to address non compliance in a particular area of concern. Campaigns run for defined periods of activity and are resourced by re-prioritising effort across the agency. To undertake the Enhanced Compliance – Import Threshold Campaign, 38 officers were allocated from other activities for three months. This level of staffing effort equates to approximately $900 000.

(d) Customs and Border Protection published the outcomes of the campaign on its website on 19 May 2011. These outcomes show the vast majority of people are complying with requirements. During the campaign, Customs and Border Protection undertook:

(2) During the campaign, where the value of goods could not be established importers were contacted to confirm the purchase price paid for the goods. In these instances, the goods were held until importers responded to requests for proof of purchase price.

(3) Goods that have not received Customs clearance must be stored in a licensed or approved Customs place and are the responsibility of the operator. During the campaign, Australia Post arranged for some temporary additional storage of held goods awaiting proof of purchase at their Sydney International Mail Gateway (IMG) facility – one of four IMGs that processes imported mail.

In the air and sea cargo environment the majority of held goods were stored by express couriers. There were no indications from the express couriers that they had difficulty storing these goods in their current facilities.

(4) Approximately 13,000 importers were contacted to confirm the purchase price paid for goods.

(5) 1,942 instances of non-compliance with the low value threshold were detected during the campaign. From this, $429,152 in GST, $128,193 in duty and $160,882 in deferred GST was identified.

(6) (a) In 2009-10 there were approximately 44 million items (excluding letters) imported to Australia with a value under $1,000.

(b) The Enhanced Compliance – Import Threshold campaign has shown the vast majority of importers are complying with the existing low value threshold rules. Sampling of the general population during the campaign showed non-compliance rates of:

(c) Since the increase in the low value threshold in 2005 for air cargo, compliance activities have focused on identifying and targeting high risk consignments, and did not include a sampling program. This makes it difficult to compare fluctuations across of the general population over this time. However, during previous targeted activity (April to September 2010), Customs and Border Protection targeted and assessed 33,632 consignments entered under the low value threshold in air and sea cargo. These assessments resulted in 1,910 detections and recovered $185,140.59 in duty and $487, 917.88 in GST. A further $1,001,588.89 in deferred GST was identified.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 5 May 2011:

(1) Who represents Australia on the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC).

(2) Who represented Australia at the Infrastructure Development Working Group and Reliable Nuclear Fuel Services Working Group meetings held in Paris in April 2011.

(3) Who will represent Australia at the 6th Steering Group Meeting to be held in Jeju Island, Republic of Korea, on 18 May and 19 May 2011.

(4) What qualifies as an 'observer organisation' to the IFNEC.

(5) What are the Government's objectives in engaging with the IFNEC.

(6) To date, what is the total cost arising from Australian delegations engaging with the IFNEC.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

(1) A number of agencies across Government have represented Australia at the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation meetings and its predecessor the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. These agencies include:

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) (including the Australian Safeguard and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO));

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO);

The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (RET) and formally Department of Industry, Tourism and Resource

(2) Ms Nicole Hinton, Manager, Uranium Industry and Nuclear Section, Fuels and Uranium Branch, Resources Division, Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism

(3) Dr Robert Floyd, Director General of Australian Safeguard and Non-Proliferation Office

(4) An international organization may be invited to participate in the International Framework by consensus of IFNEC Participants, and becomes an Observer Organization by accepting the invitation to join the International Framework by letter to the Chair of the Executive Committee. Current Observer Organizations are the International Atomic Energy Agency, the European Atomic Energy Community and the Generation IV International Forum.

(5) Australia has been attending meetings of IFNEC on a non-active participant basis. Objectives are to ensure that Australia's interests in nuclear non-proliferation and security are taken into account by monitoring IFNEC developments, and by providing information (e.g. concerning uranium mining) to IFNEC partners, as appropriate.

(6) Total travel costs, since 2007, for attendance at meetings of IFNEC and its predecessor, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, are estimated at $113,600.

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

asked the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, upon notice, on 5 May 2011:

With reference to the independent review of the current state of health and safety arrangements at ANSTO Health

(1) Who is leading and serving on the independent panel?

(2) With whom has the panel conducted interviews?

(3) At what locations has the panel conducted inspections?

(4) Will the report, due 31 May 2011, be made public?

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) On 23 February 2011, I issued a media release announcing the composition of the panel. The panel is chaired by Mr Mark Paterson AO, Secretary of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. The members of the panel are Mr Grahame Cook, Dr Jim Peacock and Mr Tim Ayres.

(2) The panel met with representatives from the ANSTO Board, employees from ANSTO and ANSTO Health, and representatives from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).

(3) The panel undertook a site visit to ANSTO at Lucas Heights on 11-12 April 2011. As part of this site visit, the panel undertook a tour of Building 23A where the radiopharmaceutical production facility is located.

(4) The Terms of Reference require the panel to provide me with a final report by 31 May 2011. I intend to table the report in Parliament.

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

asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 5 May 2011:

With reference to the independent review of the Comcare report regarding the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and the alleged breach of section 76 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991 (Investigation Number 4245):

(1) Who is leading and serving on the review panel,

(2) Why was the reporting date extended for the review,

(3) When will the report be finalised and will it be made public.

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

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

(1) The review panel comprises Mr Jason Epps - Assistant Director Program Coordination – Capability and Professional Standards, Work Health & Safety Group, Comcare (Convenor); Mr Alex Kalaiziovski – Senior Regulatory Officer – Regulatory and Policy Branch – Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency; and Ms Cherie Holland – Lead Engineer – AMOG Consulting.

(2) The reporting date was extended to accommodate submissions from ANSTO. The provision of the comprehensive written and oral submissions substantially lengthened the review timeline.

(3) On 6 May 2011, the review panel provided the review report to the decision maker, the General Manager of Work Health and Safety Group (WHSG), Comcare. On 11 May 2011, the WHSG General Manager provided a copy of the review to the ANSTO CEO and advised of his current intention to accept the conclusions and recommendations of the review panel. He is allowing ANSTO until 18 May 2011 to comment on the review report and his intentions before making his decision on the review. Comcare is planning to release a statement on the outcome of the review after the decision has been provided to ANSTO.

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 Infrastructure and Transport, upon notice, on 11 May 2011:

Can a list be provided of all Tasmanian businesses that are receiving Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme assistance for northbound shipments of products classified under commodity code 02950.

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

The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Centrelink has advised that for 2010-11 the following companies received Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme assistance for northbound shipments of products classified under commodity code 02950:

Greenham Tasmania Pty Ltd

Huon Valley Wool

Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd

Southern Australian Commodities Pty Ltd

Swift Australia

Tasmanian Quality Meats Pty Ltd

Cuthbertson Bros Pty Ltd

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 11 May 2011:

With reference to the Minister's decision regarding the proposed Browse Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility and industrial port at James Price Point in the Kimberley region of Western Australia:

(1) What reports and advice will be considered in making this decision.

(2) In addition to the reports and advice provided by proponents and agencies, will the Minister commission independent expert advice on the impacts of the LNG facility and industrial port on matters of national environmental significance; if not, why not.

(3) Given the clear failure of the proponent to adequately address the: (a) Strategic Assessment Terms of Reference; (b) requirements set out in the Strategic Assessment Scoping Document; and (c) Minister's Strategic Assessment Endorsement Criteria, how will the Minister gather the necessary information on which to base a responsible decision.

(4) Will the Minister wait until the statutory appeals process allowed for under the Western Australia Environmental Protection Act 1986 is complete before making a decision on the LNG project, given that this process is likely to produce important new and relevant information about the impacts of the project and the failings of the strategic assessment process; if not, why not.

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

The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) The Minister's decision on whether or not to endorse the plan for the proposed precinct will only be made following the review of all information required by the terms of reference for the strategic assessment.

(2) At this stage the department has commissioned independent expert advice in relation to potential impacts from dredging.

(3) The Minister will determine whether the proponent has adequately addressed the Strategic Assessment Terms of Reference and Endorsement Criteria after he receives the final assessment report.

(4) Yes.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 19 May 2011:

With reference to referrals made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 regarding a uranium transfer facility at Parkeston, a suburb of Kalgoorlie situated less than 1 kilometre from the Ninga Mia Aboriginal Community:

(1) Have any discussions been held with the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum or the Environmental Protection Agency about the transportation of uranium, proposed routes, ports and transfer stations.

(2) Has there been any referral of the Parkeston facility to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

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

The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has had some preliminary discussions with the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum about a possible intermodal facility at Parkeston and its potential use for uranium transport. The discussions have not addressed details of proposed routes, ports and transfer stations.

(2) No.

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 Human Services, upon notice, on 24 May 2011:

Did Centrelink contract for any 'cosmetic services' between June 2010 and June 2011; if so, in each case: (a) what was the service; (b) what was the reason for the purchase; (c) who received the service; (d) what was the cost.

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

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

Centrelink did not contract for any cosmetic surgery between 1 June 2010 and 1 June 2011.