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

At the request of Senator Coonan, I move:

That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 22 August 2011, from 10.30 am to 12.30 pm.

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 18 August 2011, from 4 pm.

Question agreed to.

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

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 342 standing in the name of Senator Heffernan by omitting '12 October' and substituting '21 September'.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee on the live export trade be extended to 21 September 2011.

Question agreed to.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Air Navigation Act 1920 and the Civil Aviation Act 1988 in relation to aircraft crew, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Air Navigation and Civil Aviation Amendment (Aircraft Crew) Bill 2011

The fundamental aim of this bill is to require Australian airlines and their subsidiaries to provide the same pay and conditions to overseas-based flight and cabin crew operating on their flights.

Currently, Australian airlines are able to use crew who are employed either through the airline's own overseas-based subsidiary, or through third parties in a foreign country.

These crew members can fly domestic legs of international tagged flights, or on international flights on Australian registered aircraft.

In July this year, ABCs Lateline program exposed the conditions these crew members can work under, including low pay and long hours, with little or no opportunity to bargain for better conditions.

Employed on foreign contracts, these crew members usually invariably earn much less than their Australian colleagues do, even though they are performing the same duties and are often working on the same flights.

On the Lateline program, Bangkok-based cabin crew who are working for Jetstar revealed that their base salary can be as little as $300 a month plus allowances.

Crew on overseas-based contracts are also not subject to the same duty limits as those on Australian contracts, which can result in their shifts being extended past what would otherwise be considered safe.

The issue of crew fatigue was one that was covered extensively in the recent Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into aviation safety, which resulted in the committee handing down two recommendations on this issue.

This bill consists of two parts, one to address international flights and the other to address domestic flights.

In the first instance, the bill amends the Air Navigation Act 1920 to impose a new condition on international aviation licences.

This condition applies to Australian airlines, and to overseas subsidiaries or associated entities of Australian airlines, as defined in the Corporations Act 2001.

Under this condition, Australian airlines that employ overseas-based cabin or flight crew through a third party for overseas flights must ensure that these crew receive the same wages and employment conditions that they would if they were directly employed by the company.

For subsidiaries or associated entities of Australian airlines, the condition is that overseas-based flight or cabin crew who are directly employed by the subsidiary or associated entity for international flights must receive the same wages and employment conditions that they would if they were directly employed by the airline controlling the subsidiary or associated entity.

These conditions apply to both new and existing licences.

An international licence will not be granted if these conditions are not met.

The second part of the bill amends the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to place a condition on the issuing of Air Operator's Certificates.

Australian airlines will be required to ensure that crew who are not directly employed by the airline but who are involved in its everyday functioning receive the same pay and working conditions as if they were directly employed by the airline.

New Zealand subsidiaries and associated entities of Australian airlines, as defined by the Corporations Act 2001, will also be required to ensure that employees are offered the same wages and conditions as if they were employed by the controlling entity. Under the bill, this will become a condition of granting a New Zealand AOC with ANZA privileges, which allow for mutual recognition of aviation certification between Australia and New Zealand as a result of the Closer Economic Agreement.

This will also apply to all new and existing AOCs.

This bill aims to stop Australian airlines and their subsidiaries from cutting corners and abusing the lax workplace standards in some foreign countries.

I would like to acknowledge the assistance and support offered by both the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian and International Pilots Association.

It is not acceptable that a crew member can be employed by an Australian airline, flying on an Australian plane, and be employed under workplace conditions and receive pay that we would consider unacceptable in Australia.

It is time for airlines to be fair with their all employees, and to be open and transparent about their employment practices with the Australian travelling public.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig), no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 18 August 2011, the technical report and all related documents, provided by Professor Jonathan West to the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Govern­ments and referred to by the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) in a press conference on 8 August 2011, relating to the determination of the boundaries of the 430 000 hectare claimed 'High Conservation Value Area' in the Tasmanian Forests Inter­governmental Agreement between the Common­wealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

Leave is granted for two minutes.

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

Thank you. Mr Deputy President, and I thank the chamber. I just make the point that I note that there is a very short time frame on this motion for the production of documents and I recognise and appreciate that in the past the chamber has expressed a view about giving the govern­ment a reasonable time frame to deal with these matters, but in this circumstance decisions around this information will be made this weekend. I know that industry has sought this data from government. It is not something that has to be sourced broadly. It should be readily available. It is in that circumstance that I have put the time frame that I have around the motion relating to the order to produce documents. I thank the chamber for allowing me to speak.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

Leave is granted for two minutes.

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

We will be supporting the motion for the production of this information, but I should forewarn the Senate that we are considering a motion to also require the databank of Forestry Tasmania—which is protected and has been for years by the Liberals and now by the Labor Party in Tasmania not taking action—to be made available for the public determin­ation of the important matters that are inherent in Senator Colbeck's motion.

He wants information from Professor West, who has obviously and publicly been appointed to do a job, which should be based on data available from the public repository of data owned by Forestry Tasmania, but the gates on that databank are slammed shut and there is a manipulated effort by Forestry Tasmania and its leader Mr Gordon to prevent the public debate from being based on information which is within those lockers. It is not good enough for him to say that the modelling coming out of that data is available in the public arena. We are astute enough to know that the modelling is only as good as the selection of data and it is the databank itself which has to be opened here.

The effort by Forestry Tasmania to manipulate the whole of the public debate through secrecy in the direction of keeping this unsustainable industry going against the public interest needs to be brought to a close, and I expect Senator Colbeck to support that opening of information to the public when the time comes as well.

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

That the Senate—

   (a)     notes that:

       (i)     water has been cascading over the Burdekin Falls Dam spillway for a record breaking 313 days since 6 October 2010,

       (ii)     the dam is currently holding 1.87 million mega litres of water which in volume equates to 3.3 Sydney harbours,

       (ii i)    the dam's catchment of 130 000 square kilometres is equal to the size of Victoria,

       (iv)    since October 2010, some 26 960 908 mega litres of water has passed over the spillway of the dam, equivalent to approximately 53 Sydney harbours, and

       (v)     Commonwealth funding for the construction of the dam was first committed in the 1982-83 budget of the then Fraser Government; and

   (b)     congratulates those in the Federal Government and Queensland Government who, since the time of that first funding had the foresight and fortitude to ensure the completion of the mighty Burdekin Falls Dam and the creation of the Burdekin River Irrigation Area.

Question agreed to.

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

Mr Deputy President, can you record that the Greens were a no. I did say no.

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

Yes, but the motion was carried. I called for the ayes. Are you seeking leave?

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

Yes.

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

It is now noted.

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

I move:

That the Senate condemns any payment of monies to Gunns Ltd for exiting native forest logging flowing from the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania .

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

by leave—I move as an amendment to the motion:

after "monies" insert ", outside of legal requirements,"

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Bob Brown's) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:19]

(The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Parry)

Question negatived.

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

by leave—the government opposes Senator Colbeck's motion. There is no reference in the intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments that refers to any payment of money to Gunns Limited. The government does not intend to support a motion condemning something that does not exist in the inter­governmental agreement referred to in the motion.

Original question put:

That the motion (Senator Colbeck's) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:28]

(The PRESIDENT: Senator Hogg)

Question negatived.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on its examination of annual reports tabled by 30 April 2011.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on the administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This report outlines one of the great debacles in our Commonwealth health system for many years. This report outlines a govern­ment that has exhibited a profound mis­understanding or a profound lack of under­standing of the role and importance of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. For years the Labor Party has attempted to hold itself up as the great saviour of Australia's public health system but in February this year what the Australian people discovered was that was nothing but a sham. Just like everything else that comes out of this government when it claims to have credibility on the economy, on education or on health policy, it was nothing more than empty rhetoric. I say that because in February this year this govern­ment made a major U-turn on how medicines are subsidised for Australians. It made that major U-turn when it decided to defer, rather than consider, the listing of new medicines that had been approved by the Pharma­ceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. No obfuscation, no excuse, no amount of spin or rhetoric can actually excuse this, because it did represent a profound change. That is outlined in great detail by the overwhelming response that this committee inquiry received from patient groups, from the pharmaceutical industry and from a rare agreement between the generic pharmaceutical industry and the originator companies of the pharmaceutical industry. But, most importantly, I refer to the overwhelming response of the patient groups who outlined exactly where this government had got it wrong.

This government came out with a number of excuses that explained why it was going to defer consideration of medicines. It did not want to say no. It thought, in typical Labor government style, that might get it into a bit of trouble but it did not want to say yes either. One of the reasons it gave, and this is outlined in the committee report, was 'there are existing or alternative treatments that are already available or there is no additional clinical benefit'. They were the words of the minister when she put out her statement in February this year stating that these medicines would not be listed, despite the fact that one of the medicines, Botox, for hyperhidrosis, had no alternative treatment available on the PBS that achieved the same outcomes. But if we put that to one side for a second, and I would like to return to that, the patients of Australia and the patient groups that represent them were outraged because this profound misunderstanding can be expressed very simply: there might be eight or 10 different ACE inhibitors on the market and there might be four or five statins on the market and, on a population level when we are looking at samples of 10,000 people, the health outcomes of those may actually be the same but that does not mean they are going to work in 10,000 individuals in the same way. That does not mean that each individual patient is going to have the same response or deliver the same health outcome.

This is at the core of the government's misunder­standing: the idea that population health assessments mean it is the same for an individual patient. What doctors do, Madam Acting Deputy President, is actually treat you with a different ACE inhibitor or a different statin because different people actually react in very different ways. Yet the government said, for some reason, 'Oh, there's another treatment there. It doesn't matter if we don't list this other medicine.' They were not caring at all about the fact that for individual patients this actually meant some of them were not going to get the medicine they needed. This goes to the core of one of the two principles that we have when we are listing new medicines. There is the cost-effectiveness test, as outlined by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Com­mittee and used in Australia for nearly 20 years. Quite frankly, it is a world-leading example of how to list new medicines. But we also have a cost-minimisation model that allows a company to say, 'If this medicine B is as good as medicine A for treating blood pressure'—or for treating high cholesterol—'then we can actually list that new medicine as well.' There is no cost if patients are actually substituting one medicine for another that works better. There may be an additional cost because of the point that I raised earlier, that some patients now have access to a medicine that works. These might all be in the same class of medicines and they might all be very similar but they are very different if they work for you but they do not work for someone else, particularly if you are that person for whom they do not work and now you have the chance of a better health outcome. Ithink I can speak on behalf of the entire committee about what we heard from a particularly brave young woman, Chey-Anne Ellsum from Gippsland in Victoria. I said that I wanted to return to those who suffer from hyperhidrosis. We can disagree on some of the politics of this in the sense of whether it is fair that this medicine was not listed, but I think we will all agree that it was particularly brave of this young woman to put on the record her experience. It impressed the committee and the majority of the committee found her evidence to be particularly persuasive.

The recommendations of the majority of this committee are quite simple. It is that the government retract its statement of February this year when it implied that there had to be cost savings to list new medicines and that it recommit to the memorandum of under­standing and really consider the listing of medicines. Only in the world of the modern Labor Party is the deferral of a decision a decision. Only this Labor Party would say that a deferral of a decision constituted a decision. But we will let them live with that, because this is something that needs to be addressed.

Finally, we have also asked that what is known as the $10 million rule be reinstated. The $10 million rule has been very unpopular with the pharmaceutical industry and many industry players. The minister for health had the capacity to list new medicines, without reference to cabinet, as long as the medicines did not cost more than $10 million in any given year. What we have in Australia increasingly now is a lot of smaller population medicines that treat very small numbers of people and that do not actually provide a huge commercial return. This rule provided those industry participants with certainty. It meant that patients with very small numbers of fellow patients suffering the same condition could get access to medicines because, once the PBAC approved it, the minister had the capacity to list it. We are not saying that cabinet should not be able to consider the more expensive medications but that when the cost of a medicine is less than $10 million and the government—a government for which we can simply add up the tens of billions of dollars that have been wasted in a budget that has gone from $260 million to $350 billion in only four years and billions were wasted on pink batts and school halls—tries to tie the denial of access to new medicines to the idea of fiscal rectitude, this not only shows its profound inability to handle Commonwealth finances but also its lack of prioritisation of what really matters to the Australian people.

I will comment briefly on a couple of comments made in the dissenting report of the ALP members of the committee. In paragraph 1.14 they claim that this has been done before when the previous government refused to list Viagra. To all those people who are suffering hyperhidrosis and to all those people who have conditions for which there is no available treatment, I urge them to hold Labor to that statement that somehow this is actually comparable to not listing Viagra. I am not trying to dismiss any particular medical condition but a decision was made at that point that we had to priori­tise the treatment of conditions. What Labor has done with this decision is prioritise the treatment of individual patients. What really matters now is whether or not you are lucky enough to have one of the medicines that is currently listed and that works.

The government members are disingenuous in paragraph 1.15 where they say that previous PBAC recommendations had not been followed. Those recommend­ations did not deny access to medicines; they were pricing decisions. Those recommend­ations did not actually mean that a patient could not get access to a medical treatment. They were simply about the administration of the PBS. It is misleading to try and compare that decision to this one. This represents, in the words of a number of the stakeholders that came before the committee, a profound change in the administration of pharmaceutical benefits in Australia.

I urge people who are interested in this area of policy to read the report. It is quite extensive. I would like to conclude by thanking, as always, the exceptional work of the committee secretariat. We would not be as effective in our jobs without their ongoing and tireless support.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Government senators have considered the majority report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on the administration of the Pharmaceutical Bene­fits Scheme and disagree with its findings. The evidence taken during the inquiry does not support the position that the govern­ment's decision to defer the listing of certain medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a major change in government policy or will have a serious detrimental effect on the PBS, as noted by Professor Lloyd Sansom AO, Chair of the Pharmaceut­ical Benefits Advisory Committee. Before I go on to quote him, I would like to formally thank him here, in the chamber, for his services, as I understand he will be retiring from that position. Professor Sansom said:

Governments have also accepted other PBAC recommen­dations, such as price reductions for biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs listed on the PBS for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and recommendations that certain medicines should comprise therapeutic groups. ... Previous governments have decided not to accept other recommendations of the PBAC. For example, the recommendation of the PBAC in 2001 to maintain the price relativity between the ACE-inhibitor class of drugs and ATRA class of drugs.

The government of the day sometimes accepts recom­mendations of the Pharmaceut­ical Benefits Advisory Committee and sometimes it does not. The contention that somehow this 'constitutes a major, unnecess­ary and unwelcome change in Government policy' is not borne out. Professor Sansom said that advisory committees 'advise gov­ernments, and we have a democracy where governments make decisions'. But coalition senators continue to put the following view:

This profound and ill-considered change in policy puts at risk affordable access to medicines for Australians, and will have significant consequences for the pharmaceutical sector, including research and development.

What did the industry say? Mr John Latham of Pfizer echoed these sentiments:

When you look at the role of the pharmaceutical industry and what we do, our role is really to innovate and work in a system that discovers and brings new medicines to market. Those medicines are there to treat diseases. For critics to say that the industry are threatening to not bring new products to Australia because we do not like the system is rubbish. We are here and our job is to discover medicines and bring them to citizens around the world.

Yet the coalition senators continue in their view:

Further, the committee is concerned that the independence and reputation of the PBAC will be irreversibly damaged by the referral of all listings for Cabinet consideration.

But Mr David Learmonth, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing, said:

Companies are still actively seeking listing on the PBS, as evidenced by the fact that there has been no change in the total number of submissions received for consideration by the PBAC over the last three months. On the contrary, the July meeting of the PBAC received a record number of submissions.

Besides, the coalition senators have ignored that the number of deferrals is very small and will not impact upon the overall operations the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The deputy secretary went on to say:

Finally, whilst eight deferrals were announced in February this year, two of these have subsequently been listed. No medicines recommended by the PBAC, at its March 2011 meeting, were deferred by the government and, by September this year, 152 new drugs or amendments to listings of existing drugs will have been listed on the PBS, reflecting the government's continued commitment to list medicines.

The coalition continued:

The government has made much of the need to be fiscally responsible in the current economic climate.

Various witnesses concurred that fiscal responsibility was an important consideration for the government. Mrs Liliana Bulfone from Deakin University said:

In a perfect world there would be no need for a cabinet review of the PBAC decisions, but we acknowledge that affordability of medications in the short term is definitely an issue that the government may need to consider, particularly in circumstances where the drug has an effect over a very long time horizon.

Professor Sansom said:

... there will always be some patients who will not have access to a particular medicine under the PBS, as it is not sustainable to list every single medicine.

Finally, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing concluded:

I would argue that the biggest hurdle for a company as to whether a drug ends up being subsidised on the PBS remains the PBAC, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.

And:

In 2010, 63 per cent of all first-time, cost-effective submissions were rejected by the PBAC. This is not a one-off statistic but a consistent marker of the rigour of the assessment process undertaken. It is this assessment process which I would suggest is the main decision point for companies in determining whether to bring a drug to the subsidised market in Australia.

This inquiry did not conclude that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was seriously harmed. It did not conclude that industry would withdraw from the Australian market. The inquiry did not conclude that the government should not be fiscally responsible, nor should it and nor has it ever rubber stamped the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee's recommendations and it did not conclude that the memorandum of understanding with Medicines Australia had been undermined.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak for the first time on the real business of the Senate by joining the debate on the report of the Finance and Public Administra­tion References Committee on the admini­stration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This was my first engagement with the committee system. It is an invaluable way for the government, the parliament and the community to engage with issues that affect their lives. I thank the committee members for helping me through my first days and, in particular, Senator Ryan, who was very helpful with some of my questions.

The PBS is well regarded internationally. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is loved by Aust­ralians. It is a scheme which provides secure access to lifesaving medication for Australians and they quite rightly are very protective of it. It is a sound invest­ment in the health of Australians and it is one of the few areas of public policy that has been based on demonstrated cost effectiveness. So we need to be very protective of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

We understand the dilemma that the government is in. It is expensive and the cost of medication is increasing all the time. We know that there are competing priorities for our healthcare spending and it is prudent for the government to review the expen­diture of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. But the decision by this government to defer the listing of a number of important medications was a serious mistake and we urge the government to reconsider that decision.

It is one of the few areas of public policy that has managed to unite the coalition, the Greens, the pharmaceutical companies, the health professionals, industry groups and consumer health groups against a decision made by a government. It was a bad decision and it has in fact undermined the integrity of what is a very rigorous process. It has shaken the faith of people in the industry, consumers and the industry itself because it relies on the fact that the industry is able to invest in medication, achieve certain benchmarks and know that when the time comes, if those benchmarks are achieved, that medication will be listed.

The Greens have tried to be very constructive through this process, and we think that there are other areas of action that may warrant some attention. In particular, we think that the issue of the generic industry has the potential to save the government billions of dollars. One of the critical things that needs to happen is that generic medication needs to be made available without delay when patents expire on originator medications.

We need to make sure that there are incentives within the system to ensure that manufacturers have proper incentives to discount their drugs. We need to make sure that mandatory price reporting is not weakened and applies across all major therapeutic classes. We also need to ensure that the medical profession is prescribing medication according to guidelines that are efficient and that we are prescribing medications for the prescribed indications. We do believe it is a mistake. We know that there have been precedents for this. We know that there have been several occasions where the government has made a decision to defer the listing of a medication that has been approved by the PBAC. However, on this occasion the circumstances are very different. We think that it is critical that the government review this decision in light of the number of submissions that were presented to this committee and we think we need to be focusing on the long-term sustainability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme through the measures that we have described in that report. We urge the government to reconsider.

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

I rise to speak on the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on the administration of the PBS which Senator Ryan justly referred to as another government debacle. The treatment of life-threatening illnesses has been compromised by the decision of the Gillard Labor government to defer listing new drugs on the PBS. A Senate inquiry heard in Canberra that there was no formal criteria for the deferral of drugs and that the government's own advisory body had no inkling of this turnaround in policy prior to the announcement by the Minister for Health and Ageing on 25 February. Patients have every right to feel cheated by this decision and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee had every right to feel ignored.

It was obvious from the evidence that there was no consultation before the Gillard cabinet made this arbitrary decision to defer the listing of eight new medicines and vaccines. The Department of Health and Ageing even admitted that the initial decision to defer drugs was made in February 'in the context of the overall fiscal environment'. The penny-pinching Gillard government have been caught out trying to cut life-saving treatment to make its own bottom line appear healthier than it is. This is after they have squandered billions of dollars on fluffy stuff in people's ceilings and on the Building the Education Revolu­tion—you name it, they have wasted money it. Now here they are playing with people's lives—penny-pinching when it comes to life-saving drugs so they can make their own bottom line appear healthier than it is.

Minister Roxon thought she could win brownie points, but the inquiry rightly exposed the hot anger in the medical and pharmaceutical communities over the meddling by a group of people unqualified to make life-and-death decisions on people's treatment. How must the independent members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee feel knowing that their expertise was ignored by Minister Roxon? Wouldn't you like to have been a fly on the wall when they had their closed-door meeting shortly thereafter when all their officials were sent out of the room? Surely this must compromise the professional integrity of the members of the committee.

We learnt from the inquiry that patients with conditions needing treatment with the deferred drugs had to take their chances. If they could afford to pay, they won the treatment lottery. If they could not, they missed out. The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing, Mr David Learmonth, told the hearing in answer to my question that the decision to knock back the listing of Botox as a treatment for excessive sweating, as explained by a young witness—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tony Abbott cut a billion dollars out of health.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I ask you to kindly call Senator Cameron to order and exercise your discretion from the chair.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators must come to order and allow Senator Fierravanti-Wells to continue.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Take him on like you did the aged-care system when you were in government.

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

Or like your mate Mr Thomson on the weekend with his disgusting behaviour, Senator Polley.

Senator Polley interjecting—

Yes, absolutely; happy to take him on like the other day.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senators! Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I am on my feet. I ask the Senate to exercise some orderly behaviour. I call Senator Fierravanti-Wells to continue her remarks and ask her to direct her comments through the chair.

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

I was referring to the comments by Mr David Learmonth. In answering my question, he told the hearing that the decision to knock back the listing of Botox as a treatment for excessive sweating, as explained by a young witness, Ms Cheye-Ann Ellsum, at the Melbourne hearing:

... was the decision of government in the case of that particular medicine.

He dismissed it offhand just like that—just like Minister Roxon dismissed it offhand. This young lady needed Botox injections to treat severe sweating. Her grandparents had to pay after the treatment was refused subsidy. As she gave evidence, we thought thank goodness for her grandparents. This young woman was prepared to appear before the committee so that we could hear how these decisions taken around the cabinet table in Canberra have drastic and debilitat­ing effects on people's lives. This young witness is the face of that bad decision.

And there was another witness who appeared before the committee: Renee Hindson, a single mother who had a brain tumour and needed certain drugs. I wish to put on the record my admiration of both these witnesses for their courage in coming to give evidence. Frequently at these inquir­ies we have officials and companies, but we do not often see these sorts of witnesses. It was difficult but very good that these people gave evidence.

Initial costs for new drugs can mean long-term savings, but the PBAC's recommend­ations have been ignored by Minister Roxon and her cabinet colleagues. This is not an ideal way to formulate health policy. What is the point of having an expert advisory body if its advice is ignored? These decisions have a real impact on the quality of people's lives. The committee heard that the pharmaceutical companies felt frustrated. The deferrals go against the spirit of the memorandum of understanding between the industry and the government. The inquiry exposed the anger in the medical and pharmaceutical commun­ities over the meddling by a group of people unqualified to make life-and-death decisions on people's treatment. This is the same government responsible for billions of dollars of waste, as I said, in pink batts, BER and the rest.

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

Billions and billions!

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

Billions and billions—thank you, Senator Williams. It has refused to subsidise life-saving treatments for thousands of Australians so that it can pay for its mismanagement—its utter, total mismanage­ment—of the economy.

Government senators interjecting—

All that waste, and yes, people will pay for this as a consequence of your mismanagement. Witnesses from the pharmaceutical companies said tens of thousands of patients had been affected and potentially many more would be if new drugs were not made available. Of course, federal cabinet will be making life-and-death decisions, a point succinctly and repeatedly made by so many witnesses. Companies were being discour­aged from investing in research and develop­ment because there was no certainty in the process anymore. Senator Ryan referred to the five recommendations that the committee is making. These go to overturning the decision that the Gillard cabinet made to get involved in the process. It should not have been involved.

Senator Polley went on about the record number of applications to the PBAC during the July meeting. Of course, Senator Polley, there were record numbers, because the process started—as if you were not listen­ing—years ago, and the July meeting was the end result of a process. Even you, Senator Polley, should be able to understand what was said in simple English, and that was that this was the end of a process.

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

Time!

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

I have still got a minute and 51 seconds, Senator Conroy. The government should withdraw the statement it made on 25 February 2011 regarding the deferral of the listings of new medicines and the new rules applying to listing from that point forward. The government should retract the statement that the PBAC listing recommendations will not be proceeded with until savings are found to offset the costs of listing those medicines under the PBS. The government should explicitly state that it rejects any implications that the listing of new medi­cines requires savings to be made elsewhere in the health portfolio. The government should restate its commitment to making an explicit decision regarding the listing of new medicines on the PBS within the terms and intent of the memorandum of understanding signed with Medicines Australia on 6 May 2010 and re-signed on 28 September 2010, and it should reinstate the $10 million rule so that medicines that have a financial impact of less than $10 million in each year over the forward estimates can be listed on the PBS schedule by the minister without waiting for cabinet approval.

Question agreed to.

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

It being after 5 pm, pursuant to order, I now call Senator Gallacher to make his first speech. I ask honourable senators that the usual courtesies be extended to him.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election as President. I trust I will benefit from your wisdom and guidance as I learn the ropes in this place. To all new senators I extend my congratulations on your election. To the very capable parliamentary staff: I thank you for your welcome and guidance to date.

I fill a vacancy created by Annette Hurley's decision not to seek another term. Annette has set a high benchmark through her dedication and work ethic. Her contribu­tion to the Labor Party has been of the highest order, and the fact that I have inherited a fully functioning office with well-trained and capable staff is testament to Annette's demonstrated capacity for always doing the right thing, ensuring a smooth transition. As a new senator I greatly appreciate the fact that Nimfa Farrell, Peter Gonis, Matthew Marozzi and Dianna Zollo have chosen to continue their service. I look forward to continuing and upholding the high standard set by Annette and wish her all the best in her future endeavours.

I was born in New Cumnock, Scotland, in 1954 and arrived in Australia in 1966. My father, like so many migrants, came to Australia seeking a better chance for himself and his family. Sadly, my mother and father are no longer with us and cannot be here today. However, I am certain they would be very proud. However, my Aunty Doris and Aunty Mattie put a little Scottish perspective on hearing the news with stern advice along the lines of, 'Don't get a big head,' and, 'Don't get too big for your boots'—advice I intend to heed.

Many people have been instrumental in my taking this place as a senator for South Australia—firstly, the Labor voters of South Australia. I am deeply humbled and honour­ed to be one of your representatives. I will strive to be true to the Labor values of a fair go and a better chance for all. It is my belief that the Labor Party is the only party that provides all Australians a greater share of the prosperity of this great nation. I truly hope I can repay the faith that you have placed in your party in electing me to this place.

My wife, Paola, has been a tower of strength. Her love and capacity for ensuring the important things in life—family, children and grandchildren—are front and centre have ensured that I have become a much better person, ensuring the humility and respect for others necessary to make an effective contribution. Our children, Caroline, Ian, Terry and Frank, are a source of immense pride and, along with Dave, Seonaid, Tammy and Sharon, hopefully the source of many more grandchildren to add to the ranks of Connor, Lachlan and Mia.

I firmly believe that all Australians want a better environment and a greater opportunity for those who come after them and I will endeavour to fulfil that obligation in my role here in the Senate.

To my brother Joe, a lifelong source of good advice and stability: I thank you for being here to share this occasion. A number of friends and family are here tonight proudly wearing medals pertaining to military service, without which our country would not be what it is today. I salute your past and continuing service. I well remember that vigorous debate on the TWU committee of management when the Howard govern­ment committed troops to Timor. The debate ended when it was realised that the govern­ment had the executive power to commit the troops and it was then the job of the TWU, in the words of WA secretary Jim McGiveron, to make sure the troops had everything necessary to ensure their comfort and success. We must never let our democratic right to argue for or against military involve­ment obscure the fact that an elected govern­ment has the authority to commit our armed forces to places of conflict. It is my belief that we must always resource and afford our complete respect to our people who bravely take up that challenge.

Many friends, present and absent, from all walks of life have wished me well. I salute you and assure you that your contribution to my development is greatly appreciated. John Camillo, AMWU; Deb Black, FSU; and Bob Donnelly, ETU: I thank you and your organisations for your friendship and support. To Peter Malinauskas of the SDA, a wise head on young shoulders, I say: to have so capably replaced former secretary Don Farrell in such a short time is a testament to your dedication and work ethic. I am privileged to have your friendship and your organisation's support.

To my good friend Don Farrell, who encouraged me to take up the role, I say: I will endeavour to reward your confidence and friendship. My friends at the TWU of Australia—Jim McGiveron, Tony Sheldon, Michael Maine, Wayne Forno, Wayne Mader, John Berger and Peter Biagini—and many rank-and-file members, delegates and executive members have all congratulated me on my elevation to this place. I thank them. I promise I will endeavour to uphold their ideals and aspirations for safe, secure and well-paid jobs.

To my successor at the TWU SA-NT branch, Ray Wyatt, and his team in South Australia and the Northern Territory I say that I am confident you will take our branch along the pathway to greater success. I cherish the loyalty and comradeship of existing and past office holders. The branch's success is evidence of the untiring efforts of those selfless characters who I have had the privilege of working with. Bryan McIntosh, Bob Whinnen and my great friend and confidante former president Doug Frusher are real standouts amongst many contributors in my 23 years at the TWU.

It is the function of first speeches to outline key interests and policy drivers. There are no surprises here. I have three priority interests—the transport industry, road safety and superannuation. I have been involved in the transport industry all my life. In my humble opinion, there is no better place to work. There is no smoke and mirrors, just plain-talking, hardworking employees and employers alike in a tough, competitive industry which works harder than most people imagine and continues to work while most people are asleep. Along the way, I have been privileged to meet some icons of the transport industry—some well known and others not so well known. They all share common attributes—that is, a capacity for hard work and a selfless dedication to the task at hand. Employers and employee representatives in the transport industry share these attributes and have generally made the industry a very efficient machine, putting the goods in the right spot, on time and in full, ensuring the society we live in functions effectively.

Clearly the transport and distribution sector is a vital part of our economy, and it is facing massive growth and massive challenges. A recent study by the Victorian Transport Association indicated profitability and driver availability were the two most significant issues facing this sector of our economy. This is the age-old transport issue: how can an industry attract new skilled entrants when constrained by profitability? Combine this fact with regulatory authorities diligently working in states and territories across an industry which effectively has no boundaries and real challenges emerge.

The fact that only a third of the transport task is long distance does not diminish the importance of that component. Just-in-time or, more accurately, exactly-on-time delivery schedules increase the challenge. Local distribution tasks integrate with intercity and interstate operations, ensuring the necessities of life are in the nation's supermarkets and retail outlets.

Concentration of power in the freight owners creates an imbalance in negotiations which often impacts on profitability, cascading down into increased pressure on operators, with negative outcomes for the industry and the broader community.

Regulatory authorities are an important part of protecting our community. They need to be given the resources and the direction to actively pursue those disreputable operators not complying with the regulations and ensure a level playing field which will allow the reputable operators to gain a fair return on their investment.

The industry's contribution to carbon emissions is a significant challenge. The industry is responsible for about six per cent of our carbon emissions, and this is predicted to double over the next 20 years. Major industry groups believe they can reduce 20 per cent of these emissions through reduced fuel consumption initiatives which I believe government should support. Technology in engine design may also reduce carbon emissions. However, doing nothing is not an option, as passing on the increased costs imposed will have a significant impact on inflation, affecting every household and business in the community.

Professional drivers should be able to complete work without excessive fatigue, injury and death as a daily challenge. Clearly, safe systems of work are the responsibility of all participants in the transport chain. The impacts in human terms and economically of getting it wrong are enormous. To quote our Prime Minister at the ACTU congress in 2009:

We will make sure that payment methods and rates do not require drivers to speed or work excessive hours just to make ends meet.

Clearly the transport industry faces many challenges; however, it always has. Its entrepreneurial spirit is undiminished. Challenges will be met; transport workers and their employers will soldier on. It is unlikely that Australia will wake up one morning and find the necessities of life not in the nation's stores. However, a prudent approach would be to not take this for granted and to work towards increased stability in the sector by careful evaluation and action on the demonstrated needs of this sector. A lifetime on the road in my working life and capacity as a TWU official has made me aware of the ever-present dangers that each Australian faces every day when they drive their vehicle. I have a real passion for road safety. Our country's prosperity is reflected in our love affair with the motor vehicle. The freedom and mobility achieved by owning a car are tempered with the sickening human and economic cost of vehicle accidents. The various authorities charged with third-party insurance provision understand that death is relatively cheap when compared with the costs associated with serious and catastrophic injuries. The attendant economic costs are enormous, estimated to be $27 billion to the Australian economy. I have always believed that we should adopt the Swedish model of Vision Zero, which requires a move from traditional thinking. Vision Zero starts with this statement:

We are human and we make mistakes. Our bodies are subject to biomechanical tolerance limits and simply not designed to travel at high speed. Yet we do so anyway. An effective road safety system must always take human fallibility into account.

I am glad this Labor government is doing exactly that in the recently announced National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020. There is no city or town across our nation that will not benefit from this fundamental shift in our approach to road safety.

Enormous effort is currently dedicated by all stakeholders in the provision of road safety. Many outcomes are heading in the right direction: improved roads, improved vehicle design, smart systems for avoiding crashes, rigorous enforcement and tremend­ous improvements in recovery and treatment at intensive care facilities of crash victims all play their part. However, I am certain that those dedicated people responsible for road trauma would prefer not to await with dread the next accident victims on any long weekend in Australia. Is it acceptable that our police, paramedics and firefighters are simply putting a body into a bag or cleaning up the blood left on our streets? Surely it would benefit all if they did not have to do such tasks. Sweden does it better with 4.3 deaths per 100,000. Australia, despite our geographical differences, can improve its 5.78 annual deaths per 100,000. Saving 1,291 lives and reducing 32,000 injuries across Australia is a challenge we should accept.

Finally, the toll amongst our youngest drivers is most severe. When our least experienced drivers make up far too signifi­cant a percentage of deaths and injuries then we are duty bound to advocate for change and integrate the failing human in design. It must be accepted that a great proportion of young drivers do not offend. It is the risk takers, the bulletproof few, that make up this disproportionate and dreadful statistic. The importation of vehicles into Australia with much lower safety features than Australian made cars, or the great majority of imported models, is a serious concern. These vehicles marketed on price alone will have a negative effect on any improvements in deaths and serious injury if they become popular amongst our most vulnerable road users.

As a TWU official with a long involve­ment in the improvements of workers' rights, I believe government must act in the interest of workers in retirement. Superannuation has been one of the great learning curves of my career. Along the way I have been privileged to work with many fine people. The TWU super fund and its board of industry representatives is a great organi­sation ably led by chairman David Galbally QC and CEO Bill McMillin. I am honoured by the presence of Bill McMillin and director Peter Garske here tonight. The challenges facing industry funds are numerous. I am grateful that the Labor government is introducing significant reforms such as MySuper and is moving to increase the superannuation guarantee contribution to 12 per cent. Low fees and no commissions are critical drivers of increasing member accounts. Members' interest in super accounts generally equates with increased balances, and often education is least evident at the most important times. Lack of education or even interest at the most important time—that is, when you are young—is commonplace. In order to take advantage of what Einstein referred to as the eighth wonder of the world, compound interest, young people need to be educated, preferably at school.

Our national superannuation savings pool of $1.36 trillion is the envy of the developed world. The fact that the Howard government dropped the ball and failed to deliver on improved legislated contributions was an important opportunity lost. The changing demographics of our nation and the fact that we are living longer and therefore need to fund a longer period of retirement present some real challenges. Increased migration boosting the workforce is one solution. Our children accepting a greater tax burden for the costs of providing for longer retirement is another. However, I believe we should educate and ensure people have the skills and the contributions necessary to fund a good retirement outcome, whilst ensuring the age pension remains as a vital safety net.

Members will always demand value for money, and it is my belief that this is best achieved by the industry fund not-for-profit model, with all profits back to member accounts. Trustee directors representing employer and employees and only acting in the best interest of members are a world-class model. The Australian superannuation industry has a remarkable record in achieving rationalisation of funds. Clearly the appropriate and prudent regulation of long-term investments on behalf of members needs to be stringent and the cost of complying has driven rationalisation. Various studies have shown that many funds have achieved brand status, with loyalty driven by industry participation and trust in the board representatives. The optimum number of funds and the optimum size should be left to the members, who will vote with their account should a fund lapse in standards. Enforcement of employer obligations is an industry concern. Whether it is an employer simply not honouring its obligations or going broke is an increasing concern. Little seems to be done to pursue those not meeting a legal obligation, and in my view this inequity needs to be addressed. For the nation to continue to build long-term national savings in a world awash with debt is too great an opportunity to be missed. All efforts should be made to increase our long-term savings, as clearly the power in the world rests with the lender not the borrower.

The main threat to super is the increasing level of uncertainty in members' minds in respect of share markets. Their interest increases with account balances and mem­bers make decisions, usually conservative decisions, which comfort them in uncertain times. However, this may not be in the best interests of their future retirement outcomes. After owning their home, superannuation is possibly the next biggest investment of workers. An increasing aversion to volatility could open up opportunity to invest in simple and clear products, providing capital for infrastructure. The things you drive on, work in or fly out of—you can see them and they cannot disappear in a global financial meltdown. They generally behave in a predictable way and should deliver a higher return than cash. An education campaign to increase members' awareness and under­standing may see growth in allocation to infrastructure as an investment for the long term. Simply switching between a balanced option, a growth option or a cash option as a result of the daily news is unlikely to secure the long-term result required for enough retirement income.

Finally, I will finish with the following quotation by Theodore Roosevelt, sent to me by my daughter Caroline:

Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.

My daughter has captured in that quotation something that I have tried to do all my life, and I hope to continue that work in this place.

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

Order! Before I call Senator Wright, I remind honourable senators that this is her first speech; therefore, I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a tremendous honour to stand here as a senator for my state of South Australia. I am also very proud to be repreenting the Australian Greens. As Greens we are guided in all we do by four clear principles: social justice, environmental sustainability, peace and participatory democracy.

I would first like to acknowledge that we are standing on the lands of the Ngunawal people and I pay my respects to their elders, past and living. Indeed, everywhere we stand in Australia we are standing on Aboriginal lands. Those of us who came later are privileged to share this ancient continent with the original Australians. It is just that we acknowledge their rightful place, their prior occupation over 60,000 years and their sovereignty, both in our Constitution and in our everyday lives.

I am conscious that I owe my presence here today to many people and I offer them my thanks for their generosity and commitment. They were Greens party members and supporters, and friends from my community. They volunteered thousands of hours to elect a second Greens senator for South Australia in the faith and hope that the greening of the Australian parliament will be a good thing for Australia and for the future. As well, over 100,000 South Australians voted for the Greens, some of them for the first time. I am mindful of the trust that resides in every vote.

There are a growing number of Australians who believe that we need to do things differently if we are to meet the challenges that this century brings us. They see the Greens as offering a courageous and creative vision for achieving this. I wish to thank my Greens colleagues in this parlia­ment and throughout Australia for their support and welcome. There are now many of us working to bring our values to the parliaments of Australia. I would particularly like to thank my colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young for her help and encourage­ment throughout the election campaign and since.

I was fortunate to have wise and loving parents. Above all things, they encouraged me to be true to myself. Neither of them is here today. My father, Hugh Wright, died 15 years ago after a full and energetic life. My dear mum, who is 89, is too frail to travel but is watching this on a computer in Adelaide. If people would allow me an indulgence, I would just like to say, 'Hello, Mum.' They are both here with me in spirit and live in the values they modelled to their children every day—kindness, fairness, honesty, humility and courage. I hope to bring those values to my work in this parliament.

I made my home in South Australia 20 years ago with my husband, Mark. We came for his work and the family-friendly scale of Adelaide. It has turned out to be a wonderful place to raise our three children, Felix, Eleanor and Mungo, in the foothills of Adelaide, amidst a strong, caring community where people look out for each other. I thank my kids and Mark for their unwavering support and love for me. The feeling is absolutely mutual. They are my rocks.

Throughout my life, I have been blessed by loyal friends. I cannot hope to name them all, but a few deserve a special mention because of their generous role over the last two years in helping me to reach this place. There were some unexpected challenges along the way after I was hit by a car last year and did most of my campaigning from a wheelchair. I place on record my particular thanks to Carla Humphries, Jo McIntyre, Liz Davies, Kathy Gadsden, Jennifer Bonham and Marian Browett. That is not to say that I have not had support and encouragement from many other people.

I was lucky to be born into a big, rambunctious family, No. 6 of seven children—and anyone who comes from a large family knows how important your number is! So I was introduced to politics at an early age. There was a span of 19 years between my eldest brother, Neil, and my youngest sister, Felicity—and Pam, Prue, Gavin and Ian were in between. Being one of the youngest, I grew up hearing passionate discussions around the dinner table, and my older siblings brought the world of ideas and current affairs into our home. In the 1970s, that included the Vietnam War, feminism and Aboriginal land rights. There was also a growing understanding that human population pressures and technologies were threatening the natural world.

As well as ideas, they brought their partners—from Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, as it was then, Denmark and Taiwan—and then introduced me to the world. I visited Pam in Papua New Guinea, just before independence, and I have visited Flick in many places, including Cambodia and the Aboriginal townships of Yuendumu and Oenpelli. Flick cannot be here today—she is in Cambodia—but I send her my greetings.

These experiences have all made me what I am today. I am curious and passionately interested in the rich variety of cultures and viewpoints in Australia, and yet I also believe that the things we have in common are vastly greater than our differences. Being part of a big family means that I feel connected to many parts of Australia. I was an auntie at six and a great-aunt at 30, and I have many beloved nieces and nephews across the nation. Some of them are here to help me celebrate today.

My early years were spent in the country town of Red Cliffs, near Mildura, and I still identify to some extent as a country girl, although I moved to Melbourne when I was seven. I attended government schools, and I am grateful to many dedicated teachers who challenged me and encouraged me to learn and excel. There was one in particular who introduced her year 9 English class to debating and public speaking and probably had little idea what a monster she was creating!

Universal quality public education is crucial for a fair and thriving society, and I have witnessed the increasing sectarianism of schooling and the exodus of parents from the public system with regret. To change this trend, government schools must be properly funded and valued. In an increasingly divided community, where people's destinies are often determined by their postcodes, quality public education can be a unifying force. It fosters connection and under­standing by bringing together children who would otherwise always move in different orbits. For many children, it is the lifeline that will help them achieve their potential. I believe we are all impoverished when our public schools are starved of adequate funds. A fragmented society of have-lots and have-littles is not healthy for any of us, however privileged we are. In this parliament, I will work to promote and strengthen public education.

At Melbourne university I studied law and arts, and my course was set when I met Mark in a crowded lecture after I had been to an early but well-lubricated breakfast of calamari and claret. Since then, we have spent our life together, much of it on bikes, sharing many joint projects to make the world a better place. It has been a great journey. As a lawyer, I have mainly worked in the 'little' end of town, with people who find life challenging, including tenants, people on low incomes and people who live with mental illness. I have also taught public health and environmental law.

I learnt more than torts and taxation law while I was at uni. My most important lesson happened at the Franklin Dam blockade. In the fight to save the river from the same fate as Lake Pedder, I chose to be arrested, although I was jeopardising my future legal career. It was not just the beauty of the site or the spurious case for the proposed dam that drove me to take this step; it was also the cynical decision by the Tasmanian Premier to stop a peaceful protest by making it a crime to trespass on what had been public land. Down at the Franklin, I saw the strength that comes from people standing together for a shared belief in what is right. Each time I return to Strahan and see the beauty of the Gordon and Franklin rivers, which now draws people from all over the world, I am reminded of how right that action was and that we can all make a difference.

All around Australia, there are places that have been saved by persistent greenies, environmentalists who will not give up—and we all benefit. John Sinclair battled Joh Bjelke-Petersen in the 1970s to stop sandmining and forestry on Fraser Island. It is hard to imagine that anyone visiting that beautiful World Heritage listed island now would bemoan the decision to protect it. In South Australia, I am proud to say, after a long campaign by many, including the Greens and the Wilderness Society, the magnificent and archaeologically unique Arkaroola region will now be protected from mining. Again, I am sure that future gener­ations will give thanks for that decision.

This century brings some huge challenges. At one time, the earth seemed so vast it was inconceivable that we could ever reach its limits. But it is now clear that our planet is finite and that we are living beyond our means. Population growth from one billion to seven billion over 200 years, coupled with massive industrialisation, has led to overuse of the earth's resources and pollution. Those of us who read the science and will not turn away from the evidence, however tempting it is to do that at times, have been aware of the signs for years. We face increasing water scarcity, more extinctions happening now than in the last 65 million years, collapsing fish stocks and peak oil. These are all symptoms of a crisis that will not go away just because we ignore it.

Too often, governments do not respond to these signs and proceed as if the environment were some kind of optional extra which we can choose to factor in or negotiate away. Conventional economic theory reinforces this view. It was developed at a time when the environment was thought to be limitless, so it does not properly account for the real environmental costs of any particular activity. Because of this, we often have no indication of the threats to the very things that we rely on for life—clean air, clean water and the means of growing food—until they become so scarce that it is almost too late. The current fierce controversy over coal seam gas mining is a case in point. It threatens long-term food production and aquifers on some of the most productive farmland in Australia. We must not proceed full steam ahead without fully understanding what is at stake. In the 21st century there is a risk that we will see the Cree Indian prophecy applied on a global scale:

Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.

We cannot negotiate with the environment when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin either. It is agreed that the problems in the basin stem from decades of poor short-term decision making. Scientists predict that there will be 90 per cent less rainfall by the end of the century due to climate change. The science from the Wentworth group has been carefully developed and peer reviewed, and it tells us that 4,000 gigalitres is the minimum amount of water to be returned to the river for a healthy river system. If we do not heed the science, the Murray will die from the mouth up— first in South Australia but ultimately affecting every community along its length. Of course, we must help the communities in the basin to adapt to changed conditions—we must share that responsibility—but this is not a contest between the environment and people. The environmental constraints are not negotiable. If we end up with another politically driven short-term decision, the Murray's fate will be sealed. Here, as elsewhere, the science must prevail over the politics.

It takes courage to face up to these environmental challenges squarely without flinching, and it takes integrity to communicate them to an electorate that is not always willing to hear about them. Many people are understandably confused or fearful, especially at a time when simplistic slogans and frightening hyperbole are often substitutes for reasoned debate. But members of this parliament have no excuse for ignorance; we have access to the best information and advice available. We have been entrusted to be here. We have a duty to inform ourselves properly and then to make the best decisions in the long-term national interest on behalf of the people who voted us in. To me, that is the definition of leadership.

When it comes to climate change, we Australians are the highest carbon polluters per head on the planet. We often hear calls for responsibility over rights, so it is shameful that some political and business leaders are urging that we should shirk our fair share and dig our heels in until we are forced to act. This is especially so when our Pacific neighbours like Kiribati and Tuvalu face inundation. If we are unable to treat asylum seekers humanely, even at this point, how will we cope with the many climate refugees who will inevitably be forced to flee their homeland in the future? We have a moral duty to take responsibility for our role in their predicament.

Morality aside, it is only a matter of time before industries and nations must become low carbon. Australia can choose to meet this challenge by steadily moving away from fossil fuels and our traditional 'dig it up and sell it' culture to a cleaner economy based on renewable energy, energy efficiency, smart technology and innovation or we can refuse to change as urged by some and end up like General Motors in the US. For years their competitors developed more efficient cars spurred by high fuel costs in the rest of the world. But General Motors functioned in a fool's paradise protected by low oil prices in the US. They kept making cars the same old way until the height of the global financial crisis, and it was only then that they were saved from bankruptcy by a bailout of taxpayers' money reportedly to the tune of $49 billion.

We now have a clean energy strategy for Australia, including a price on carbon. This will be a vital sign to the market that the cost of carbon pollution can no longer be ignored. I am immensely proud of the role the Greens have played in ensuring that climate change has been squarely on the agenda in this term of parliament. This is a commitment we made before the election and it is one we have honoured.

I want to see an inclusive Australia, where all people can participate fully and achieve their best. Most Australians like to think that we are an egalitarian nation, and I think it says something good about the national psyche that this is important to us. Sadly, though, on any clear-eyed view there is a growing gulf between those who are doing well and those who are not. In Australia today, an unemployed person with rent assistance gets $295 a week. At the same time, the average CEO of one of the top 50 companies gets $123,000 a week. In Australia today, it is estimated 105,000 people are homeless, many of them young. In Australia today, we lock up people, including children, who come here fleeing war and torture. The asylum they seek was a responsibility we took on in 1951 when we signed the United Nations refugee convention. Indeed, in Australia today we redraw the map to pretend that some parts of Australia are not really Australia at all. The legal term for this is excision. It sounds innocuous enough but it actually means notionally cutting away swathes of our territory. As a lawyer, I have been ashamed to see the legal contortions we have engaged in to avoid our international obligations. How have these things come to pass in the land of the 'fair go'? And why is it 'extreme' to name them and seek to change them? One way of promoting fairness is to keep our most important institutions in public hands so that they are available to everyone, irrespective of their income or status. Services such as good quality public transport, housing, health and education allow everyone to share the benefits of living in a community and having their basic needs met. In this parliament I will fight for those services.

At this point I should also mention public broadcasting. I fought passionately to save the ABC from funding cuts and attacks during the Howard years. While it is not necessarily essential for physical survival, I believe that an independent, quality public broadcaster—free from commercial influ­ence—is essential for the survival of our own quintessentially Australian culture and to provide the information which is the currency of democracy. I watch with concern as many of the qualities of the ABC we fought for in the 1990s are now under threat by decisions that are being made in 2011.

When I stand here to make my last speech I would like to think that I have contributed to making Australia a kinder, fairer place. If we practise kindness and fairness I believe that we can meet the challenges this century brings. If we act fairly we will balance Australia's interests with those of other nations, we will balance the interests of our species with the needs of other species—and by doing that we will actually enhance our own chance of survival—and we will balance the needs of today with the needs of tomorrow. That is what the Greens stand for. In all my decisions I am guided by the idea that we do not just inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. I hope they will look kindly on the decisions we make in this parliament.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills, Senator Fifield, I present the eighth report of the committee. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 8 of 2011.

Ordered that the report be printed.

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

I present documents relating to the register of senators’ interests, incorporating statements of registrable interests of senators lodged by 5 August 2011 and notifications of alterations of interests of senators lodged between 1 July and 5 August 2011.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Senator Coonan, I present the 118threport of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled Treaties tabled on 23 March and 11 May 2011. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

On behalf of Senator Coonan, I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(New South Wales) (): The tabling statement read as follows—

Today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 118, which contains the Committee’s views on two treaties: the Protocol on Investment to the Australia - New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement; and the Resolution MEPC.189(60) Amendments to MARPOL.

Mr President, Australia’s economic relationship with New Zealand is conducted within the framework of the Australia - New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, colloquially known as ANZCERTA. It covers all trans-Tasman trade in goods and services, and is the principal instrument for the elimination of trade barriers between the two nations.

The Protocol on Investment will raise the threshold below which New Zealand investors in Australia will require investigation by the Foreign Investment Review Board from a 15 per cent or more share of an Australian entity worth at least $231 million to an investment of $1.005 billion.

For Australian investors in New Zealand, the threshold below which they will not be subject to investigation has increased from $NZ100 million to $NZ477 million.

Both countries have retained the entitlement to review foreign investment originating in the other signatory in sensitive areas, such as urban residential and commercial property investment, media, telecommunications, transport, defence related industries and uranium investments in Australia, and farming, waterfront or sensitive land investment in New Zealand.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade claims that the Protocol on Investment is in the national interest because it:

While the majority of the Committee supported ratification of the Protocol on Investment, the Report contains a dissent in relation to this treaty. The dissent implies that a number of Australians, particularly from rural and regional areas, worry that matters of concern to them are being lost in the debate over the broader national interest.

Mr President, the second treaty considered in this Report is the Resolution MEPC.189(60) Amendments to MARPOL.

MARPOL is a multilateral treaty regulating marine pollution. The amendments add a new Chapter 9 to MARPOL dealing with the use and transport of heavy fuel oil in Antarctic seas.

The new Chapter will prohibit the bulk transportation and use as fuel of heavy oils, bitumen and tar and their emulsions, unless they are aboard vessels securing the safety of ships or in a search and rescue operation, and ships owned and operated by governments, such as naval vessels, auxiliaries and research vessels.

The Australian Antarctic Division administers the Australian Antarctic Territory, and is the major Australian presence in the Antarctic.

The Division strongly supports the measures introduced under the Resolution. Nevertheless, implementation of the Resolution will have some operational and budgetary implications for its work.

Mr President, given Australia’s leadership in marine environment protection, it is worth noting that the research vessel chartered by the Division, the RSV Aurora Australis, already uses light fuel, and is therefore compliant with the treaty.

Australia’s stations in the Antarctic are also compliant.

The Division also contracts Russian flagged vessels to provide logistic support for its Australian Arctic Program. These vessels are large, specialised, ice strengthened cargo vessels which unfortunately operate on intermediate fuel oil, which will be banned under the treaty.

However, the Division advised the Committee that the fleet of ice-strengthened cargo vessels is nearing 30 years old, which is the usual end of a ship’s life. The Divisions expects to see a change over in this fleet to modern, compliant vessels in the next five years.

Mr President, I commend the report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I present two ministerial statements relating to the global economy and import conditions for apples from New Zealand.

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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the statement by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in relation to the import conditions for apples from New Zealand.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Needless to say, there is significant concern in agricultural sectors, particularly the apple and pear growing sectors, about the import of apples—especially given that, even though this process included the opportunity for industry to comment on the revised draft import risk assessment released by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry some time ago, the sum effect of that was that nothing the industry said had any impact on the decision. While there is a perception that industry has had the opportunity to have some input into and a say in this process, the net impact is that the government has effectively gone with the draft import risk assessment that was released by the government two or three months ago. Effectively the government has gone with the decision of the Prime Minister when she made a statement to the New Zealand parliament while she was there, I think in April, that we would of course accept the WTO decision. Certainly she gave the impression that it did not really matter what industry here in Australia was going to say; we were just going to let New Zealand apples in.

There is sincere and significant concern here in Australia that we will end up with fire blight. The New Zealanders say they do not worry about fire blight anymore; they have learned to live with it. Of course they have—they have had it since the 1920s or so, so of course they have learned to manage it. We are one of the few places that does not have fire blight, and we do not have the expense of dealing with it. Industry is understandably more than concerned about this decision, and particularly the pear growing sector. One of the reasons New Zealand does not have a pear industry is that they have fire blight, and fire blight is completely and utterly devastating for the pear industry. If anyone has seen a photograph of the impact of fire blight on a pear tree, they will know that growers effectively forget about growing pears. That is what has happened in New Zealand. I have had correspondence from someone in New Zealand saying: 'Why worry about our apples? I am enjoying one of your pears.' Of course he was enjoying one of Australia's pears—because of fire blight you cannot get a pear commercially in New Zealand.

All through this process there has been a withholding of information. Industry tried and tried to get access to New Zealand's integrated fruit management plan. They were told that it was commercial-in-confidence and it was not until the opposition demanded in this chamber that those documents be released that they were finally released. When they were released, we discovered that they were largely as prepared in the import risk assessment. All the government had to do was tell the industry that this was a reproduction of what was in the integrated fruit management plan and the industry would have understood that. But, no, the government would not put that on the table. They said sorry, you cannot have it, it is commercial-in-confidence. So of course this huge level of distrust has developed between industry and the government over this process. How could the industry not be furious about this decision and be complaining bitterly about the result it has had?

The industry through the consultation process actually put some very sensible propositions to the government. They asked that no apples be imported into Australia from orchards affected by fire blight. The New Zealand integrated fruit management system identifies those orchards, because the orchards are treated; they are sprayed. It is very easy to identify orchards with fire blight. My understanding is that only about 10 per cent of New Zealand orchards have an incidence of fire blight on an annual basis, so let us just rule them out. That lowers the risk and mitigates some of the issues. We are going to have just a simple quality assurance program. What we are being asked to accept here in Australia for the defence of our disease-free status is a quality assurance system.

One of the other questions the industry has is where is the verification system? Where is there a strong process of verification? My understanding is that the shadow minister put to the minister last week a request that we have a completed QA process, a full verification process, before the fruit is shipped. I would have thought that was a simple process that did not step outside the bounds of what is reasonable. Let us have verification that all the things that are supposed to be done are done before the fruit is shipped. Then we can have a level of confidence that there is proper verification down the supply chain, and particularly through the packing process and the inspection process. Even that has been ignored.

Given the science we have had put in front of us that fire blight loses its viability over time, it would have been quite reasonable to impose a short withholding period. My understanding is that fire blight does not seem to be an issue anymore for New Zealand apples going to Japan because there is a two-month withholding period for other pests and diseases and over that time the fire blight bacterium decays and becomes no longer viable. Why not put something simple like that in place to mitigate the issues that might impact on the industry here? But, no, the government has not accepted anything the industry has said and the industry is justifiably concerned. Apple and Pear Australia Ltd said today:

The measures adopted in the final policy and determination for the importation of New Zealand apples are horrendously weak and we are extremely concerned that the three pests recognised as major risks to our biosecurity won't be controlled to the degree the industry requires.

Industry remain concerned about the possibility of fire blight coming to this country and I think it is reasonable that they continue to be concerned. The industry goes on to say:

It is critically important that the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service maintains a high level of diligence in New Zealand and that there is no leniency in applying the phytosanitary measures.

One concerning thing which came through in this process was a statement by one of the representatives of the New Zealand industry who talked about the efficacy of the New Zealand system. There was an outbreak of one of the diseases in Taiwan that the biosecurity system was supposed to cover. This goes back to the issue of the withholding period. There was a breakdown in the New Zealand system which allowed a disease to get into Taiwan. The response from the CEO of Pipfruit New Zealand, Mr Peter Bevan, was:

No system is perfect and systems break down.

That is what we are supposed to accept—that no system is perfect, systems do not work all the time, systems break down and an admission from Pipfruit New Zealand that this does not work 100 per cent of the time. I do not think that is acceptable.

It is really disappointing that the minister has not chosen to accept any of the sensible recommendations made by the industry here in Australia. I believe we are therefore in a situation where our industry has been exposed to the potential for fire blight. We know what it will do to the pear industry and we know that it will have an impact on our apple industry. It is extremely disappointing that we have gone down that track today where the minister has effectively refused to listen to anything industry has said.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the ministerial statement tabled in relation to the import of New Zealand apples, in particular the risk of fire blight. This parliament has considered this issue for many years. It has been before rural and regional committees many times and we have spoken to people in the department very often on this subject. The fact of the matter is that several years ago officials before our committee accepted that fire blight would come to Australia. That was accepted—it will come here. Let us not pretend that we are having any discussion other than an acceptance of the fact that, whatever quality assurance processes are put in place, the reality is that one way or another fire blight will come to Australia.

The question then becomes: will it spread? That is the point over which there was considerable contention and discussion. My view is, if you import a disease of this kind, it is inevitable that it will spread. The officials, however, have argued that that will not be the case. Frankly, I cannot and do not accept that. We know this is a devastating disease to the apple and pear industry and we know that when you have it, it fundamentally changes things. It is not just the occasional tree that you might be able to excise; it means wipe out, gone, finish. You can lose virtually the entire orchard or the entire district that might have been dedicated to apple and pear growing. So we know what the consequences will be.

Australians must be asking themselves today: how is it that a nation with disease-free status, with an industry which trades on its disease-free status, would allow these products into Australia and risk that disease-free status? Why would Australia do it? Why would we go down this track? The answer is because of the World Trade Organisation rules. It is as simple as that. I am just so tired of the dedication in the Australian parliament to the extremes of the World Trade Organisation rules of free trade.

The Europeans must laugh at us every step of the way because, while they say they are committed to the WTO rules, never did a group of people subsidise and protect their agricultural product at every turn more than the Europeans. They say very clearly that their aim is to make sure that the European Union is self-sufficient across seasonal and latitudinal zones so that they can always be self-sufficient in food, that it is fundamental to their culture that they be able to grow their own food across their regions and they are sticking to the maintenance of small farms with massive subsidies. Australia can bleat its way around the Doha Round at every session of the world trade talks but the reality is that protectionism is there.

What has changed fundamentally is that with climate change and extreme weather events we are now seeing massive disruption to global food supply. The result has been that several countries have abandoned the world trade system. They have recognised that it does not matter how much money you have; if you have money but countries decide to withhold food, not to sell it, then you cannot buy it on the global market. That is why countries like China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Qatar have now said: 'Right, that's it. We will trade when it suits us but more particularly we are going to outsource our food production so that when there is a global food crisis we can just grow for ourselves at our outsourced land and water and bring that food back to the domestic market and completely ignore the trade rules.' That is why China has gone out, why the Saudis have gone out and why Qatar has gone out. They are buying up hundreds of thousands of hectares across the planet and the water rights to go with them. In the case of the Pakistanis, not only have they sold the land and water but they have sold a security force which goes with it because they recognise that at the time these food shortages really start to bite there will be hungry people outside the fences who want that food. So those countries will want to make sure that they can get that food out and back to their own countries, where they need it to be.

The whole set of World Trade Organ­isation rules pertaining to trade around food are now under serious question in the context of global food security. How do you main­tain secure supplies of food in a global market and in an age of climate change in which outsourcing of food production is now becoming a fairly common thing for some of those countries?

People who are trying to protect Australia's disease-free status are auto­matically accused of trying to bring in protectionism. Minister Emerson is out there arguing, in every second speech he gives, that anyone who stands up and says that we need to protect our disease-free status and go strictly with science to get that disease-free status right is a protectionist and is using quarantine for protection—trying to protect Australian growers against competition. The reality here is that we have disease-free status and that is incredibly valuable. As a Tasmanian, I am more than aware of the significance of our environment in ensuring there is a significant premium, because we are disease free, for Tasmanian product going into all sorts of markets.

Australia is disease free. There are many countries who would, quite frankly, be very pleased if Australia got fire blight, because that would level up the playing field. Everyone would be very happy with that outcome, except the growers in Australia. You would say, 'This makes no sense; we do not want these apples from New Zealand.' The point is that Australia did say that we did not want the apples, but New Zealand took us to the WTO. We lost in the WTO. The appeal has been through, but we lost that as well. The situation is that, because of our commitment to WTO rules, Australia would, if it persisted in keeping the New Zealand apples out, run the risk of New Zealand taking retaliatory action against us big time. They could take retaliatory action against any other products—and Australia trades massively with New Zealand.

I am very aware that the coalition solution is to introduce a disallowable instrument which would enable the parliament to disallow any part of any free trade agreement in the future. That is a very interesting turn of events. It would make global news because it would mean that the coalition had abandoned the notion of the free trade system and was giving the parliament the ability to dismantle free trade agreements and any parts thereof. That is an interesting thing that shadow minister Cobb is talking about doing. It would certainly shake up the whole WTO process and where Australia sits in it.

From the Greens' point of view, it is essential that we not only maintain our disease-free status and use the best science we have to defend our disease-free status but also recognise that, as long as we have a slavish adherence to the WTO rules, we are always going to be in this situation and we are always going to be fighting. The reason is that the basis on which we export is 'negligible risk'. It is not 'no risk'; it is 'negligible risk'. We say we send our product overseas on the basis it is negligible risk and, as a result, the New Zealanders say, 'You have these apples—since it is negligible risk, it comes into the same category.'

The discussion we should be having in this parliament is about how we are going to respond to the changed global trade environment in an age of food security and insecurity. How are we going to produce enough food for our own people and meet our moral obligation to supply as much food as we possibly can into a global scenario where people are going to be desperate for food? That is the reality of where we are going on this planet and that is the conver­sation we need to be having. It needs to be a much bigger conversation than just this.

I recognise the stress we are under in relation to fire blight and I particularly recognise the stress that those apple growers and pear growers are under because of this decision. I ask the government: what are you going to do when, inevitably, fire blight gets to Australia? And who is going to be liable? Who is going to pay and compensate the farmers concerned when fire blight devastat­es orchards? I cannot believe we will be in a scenario where that is not going to happen.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the ministerial statement on import conditions for apples. For 10 years I have been chairman of the committee that has kept the apples out and kept bananas out and looked at why we got citrus canker and kept BSE meat out and kept foot-and-mouth meat from Brazil out. This is an insult to the apple industry. What this is really all about is the government saying, 'Let's find a political way to get these apples in,' instead of, as we used to say, a scientific way to keep them out. This is a complete forfeiture of the rights of Australian apple growers. As everyone has pointed out, the import risk analysis, or IRA, on this said, 'We will bring in fire blight.' It is there in black and white. But, magically, it is not going to get out into the orchards.

The reason New Zealand enjoys our pears and we have not enjoyed their apples is because they have fire blight and so they have no pears. The whole thing is just a political exercise in determination to satisfy the people who sit around and drink wine in Geneva at the World Trade Organisation. It is a lowering-of-the-bar exercise which is going across all trade around the world to make it simpler to bring back to the pack people who, like us, have a trading advantage through being clean, green and free. It is exactly the same as the BSE argument and we had to do a lot of work to stop that. This is the same principle. With the BSE and the beef, the Canadian government eventually came back and we said, 'What about an IRA?' and they said, 'We do not have the resources to comply with that.' The US came back and said, 'Stick it—the American cattlemen's association does not want to have full traceability, they do not want to close the border with Mexico and they do not want to close the border with Canada and there is no such thing as a BSE-free herd.' This is the same thing.

Fire blight in New Zealand is not a reportable disease because it is endemic. What they do is go around saying, 'Oh, God, blimey, it is too high; I won't prune that one.' The evidence is that we are going to have apples coming into Australia from trees which have fire blight. They have accepted that because, they say, it is not going to get out into our orchards. The original IRA said we would have to have buffer zones and so on. Under the science, there is an acceptance that we are going to bring fire blight in but that it is not going to do us any harm—it is going to be under a code of farm manage­ment practices. I note that there is no-one here from the Labor Party to respond, probably because they are all ashamed that a political imperative has taken over the right to keep our industry clean, green and free. They are saying, 'Oh, well, our farm manage­ment practices will sort this out.' They would not show us their farm management pract­ices. They would not let us go to an apple orchard. I know as a farmer that every farmer has a different farm management practice, so that is just jiggery-pokery political garbage.

What are we doing? We are going to go along with it. For God's sake, New Zealand are in court now locked up with the pork growers because the WTO—you cannot have your bloody cake and eat it too—has said to New Zealand that they have to take pork from countries that have porcine reproduct­ive and respiratory syndrome, and they have said, 'No, we don't want to take it because we haven't got it.' It is the AIDS equivalent in pigs. At the same time as they are at the WTO telling us that we have to take their apples, they are in court saying, 'We don't want to take the pigs.'

If they actually lose that case in their court, because it is a lowering-the-bar exercise, the people who want to take this pork into New Zealand will go to the WTO and say, 'New Zealand has taken it therefore Australia should take it,' which was what the BSE thing was all about. The Yanks and the Canadians did not want to bring beef into Australia particularly. They wanted us to lose the advantage that we have in Korea and Japan every time they get a BSE reactor. Bear in mind there is no live test for BSE and there is no sterilisation for the prion of the CJD human variant. Yet, under the trade arrangements with the trade minister in this government, he was suggesting, as were the dead-head cattlemen's council, that we should take this beef into Australia just to satisfy the people that drink wine at the WTO in Geneva.

How much of this crap have we got to put up with? What is wrong with this govern­ment? Who is going to get the sack or a smack in the ear if we do what the import risk analysis says and import fire blight? How can it be and what game is being played that an official can fly into Australia one night and fly out the next night after having had a walk through the Botanic Gardens in Melbourne—which I walked through the other day just to get the feel of the place—found an obscure plant in a whole heap of other plants and said that it had fire blight? What sort of game are we being played here? They are trying to play us on a break. It is a disgrace.

We have only another four minutes all up so I had better sit down and be quiet, but this is not the finish of it. The government must understand that the one trade advantage we have in Australia is our clean, green and free status. As for the free trade agreements, which we enacted with the United States when the dollar was 67c, we now have a 40 per cent tariff against us through the currency, having got rid of the tariffs. Thank you very much.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I endorse the remarks of Senators Colbeck, Milne and Heffernan. This is without doubt one of the worst decisions that this government has made, and that is a big call. I say it with despair because the implication of this decision is to put the entire apple and pear industry in this nation at risk. It is a case where the decision has been made on very poor premises, where the goalposts have been shifted, and where Biosecurity Australia has failed Australian farmers and Australian consumers as a result.

I agree with Apple and Pear Australia and their statement today, which said:

... Biosecurity Australia (BA) has abandoned apple and pear growers across Australia and the whole industry is now fearful of fire blight, leaf curling midge or European canker entering this country.

Why on earth are we risking our clean, green, disease-free status? This is an extraordinary decision. Is this the thin end of the wedge? What next for our potato industry? What next for our horticulture industry? We know what happened with myrtle rust, which has devastated and damaged the nursery industry across the country. Once fire blight is in this country, that is it; you cannot eradicate it. We have a situation in the Goulburn Valley where they are 10 times more prone to fire blight than in New Zealand, and we can see how quickly fire blight has spread in New Zealand. This is free trade gone mad. This is about opening the door to the destruction of our horticulture industry in this country.

I recently obtained some information from my contacts within the apple and pear industry. My understanding is—and I call on the government to confirm or deny that this is the case—that several weeks ago at a meeting between industry representatives and the parliamentary secretary, Catherine King, the whole issue of how to contain fire blight was raised. It seems that the only way you can contain fire blight is to use streptomycin, an antibiotic, the use of which is banned in this country. It is an antibiotic that Professor Peter Collignon, Professor of Medicine at the Australian National University, has very serious concerns about because once it gets into our food chain it reduces the antibiotic resistance of the population. There are huge public health implications in relation to that. My understanding is that the government's response is that there will be, as a result of this decision, contingency plans to allow the use of streptomycin here in Australia. If that is the case, that is very disturbing.

Basically the government is saying that this will happen. It is conceding defeat. We will put up the white flag of surrender. We are abandoning our farmers. I would urge the government that it is not too late to reconsider this. The so-called safeguards in place will not provide the bulwark that we need to prevent the introduction of fire blight. It is not a case of if; it is a case of when we get fire blight in this country. When we do, the only way to contain it is through the use of streptomycin, an antibiotic, a chemical that is banned for use in this country today. But that will have to change as a result of this decision.

I would like confirmation from the government as to whether the use of streptomycin was considered and whether lifting the ban has been considered in this country. If it has done so it has huge public health implications. I would urge the government to reconsider its position. This is a disaster that is just waiting to happen.

Question agreed to.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the information of senators, I present a petition from Mr Mulholland under standing order 207 disputing the election of Senator Madigan, together with advice from the Clerk of the Senate.

I table responses to resolutions of the Senate and correspondence from the Chairman of the Productivity Commission responding to the order for the production of document, listed at item 13(a) on today's Order of Business.

The list read as follows—

Res ponses to Senate resolutions:

From the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (Ms Macklin) to a resolution of the Senate of 23 March 2011 concerning the problem of gambling.

From the acting Minister for Health and Ageing (Mr Butler) to a resolution of the Senate of 12 May 2011 concerning community hospitals in South Australia.

From the Chairman of the National Capital Authority (Mr Aitkin) to a resolution of the Senate of 16 June 2011 concerning the National Capital Authority.

From the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Rudd) to a resolution of the Senate of 20 June 2011 concerning World Refugee Day.

From the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Rudd) to a resolution of the Senate of 22 June 2011 concerning Egypt.

From the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Rudd) to a resolution of the Senate of 5 July 2011 concerning boycotts of Israel.

From the Ambassador of Brazil (His Excellency Rubem Barbosa) to a resolution of the Senate of 7 July 2011 concerning the death of Dr Itamar Franco.

From the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Rudd) to a resolution of the Senate of 7 July 2011 concerning South Sudan and Sudan.

From the President, UN Human Rights Council (Ms Lasserre) to a resolution of the Senate of 7 July 2011 concerning Sri Lanka.

Letter from the Chairman of the Productivity Commission (Mr Banks, AO) responding to the order for the production of document concerning superannuation funds (orders agreed to 16 November 2010 and 10 February 2011).

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

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the response by the acting Minister for Health and Ageing regarding community hospitals in South Australia that has just been tabled.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is a shocking issue that I brought to the attention of the Senate. I was pleased at the time that it passed the Senate without dissent and that condemnation of the decisions of the South Australian Labor government was carried, obviously with the full support of our Labor colleagues here in the Senate as well as the crossbenchers and all of my then South Australian Senate colleagues who co-sponsored this motion on my behalf.

This resolution highlighted the more than $1 million being stripped out of country hospital services in South Australia, particularly the Keith, Moonta and Ardrossan country hospitals. The federal minister wants to highlight a few things in his response, which has just been tabled in the Senate. I find the things he has chosen to highlight remarkable. Firstly, he highlights the fact that the federal government provides support for these hospitals through a range of existing things, such as 'through its funding contribution to private health insurance'. Guess what? Not only is the state Labor government stripping money out of these hospitals, but the federal Labor government and this minister want to strip funding through private health insurance out of these country hospitals. So we have strike one there.

Then the federal minister highlights the fact that the federal government has provided funding in the past to these hospitals through various infrastructure programs. Infrastruct­ure is wonderful. It is lovely to build a new ward for a hospital or provide some new facilities for the hospital. It is just not of much use if there is not the recurrent funding to keep operating the hospital—if they do not have the beds, the doctors and the nurses with which to actually service the patients. It is wonderful to have the bricks and mortar and the facilities, but the funding is being taken away.

The hospitals themselves have done their best to restructure, and the minister has highlighted that they have outlined financial plans to some degree. I hope they succeed in managing to keep their doors open but, if they do, it will not be through the help of this federal Labor government and certainly not through the help of the hapless South Australian Labor government, which is stripping $1 million plus out of these country hospitals. Indeed, it is a hapless South Australian state Labor government at present. It is a government embarking on the long, long goodbye—

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

It is in crisis.

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

it is in crisis indeed, Senator Cormann—to the Premier, Mr Rann. You have to wonder whether the sword of Senator Farrell, the great factional leader of the Labor Party from South Austra­lia, is still blunt from the execution of Prime Minister Rudd and he has been unable to get it sharpened again in time to have a swift, clean execution of Mike Rann. It has been anything but swift or clean. Perhaps it is just that he has left it to the juniors, his deputy executioners, and his deputy executioners, not being so apt at how to—

Senator McEwen interjecting—

Oh, Anne, you want to stand up for the mess that you have got the state in at present? What do we have: one premier, two premiers, three premiers, no premiers? It is so hard to tell. Senator Farrell sent his deputy executioners there, and the deputy executioners pulled the lever and the trapdoors opened but the rope was not long enough. They pulled the levers and the trapdoor opened but Mike Rann is still dangling there. It did not snap the neck. He is still alive, he is still kicking, he is still screaming. He is determined to go out causing as much pain as is feelingly possible.

So we have this awful botched leadership transition. I do not care if the Labor Party botches their leadership transitions. Political parties do get themselves in a tangle from time to time over leadership transitions and it is not pretty. However, when you are the government of the day and you leave your party leadership hanging in the balance, not just for days or weeks but for months, it has an impact on the state as well. I care about this because the people of the state of South Australia are the ones who will suffer because we have a government in crisis and a government in limbo.

I congratulate Senator Gallacher in absentia on his maiden speech. Senator Gallacher praised one of those deputy execu­tioners, Peter Malinauskas, Senator Farrell's replacement as head of the great and power­ful shop assistants union. Senator Gallacher described Mr Malinauskas as a wise head on young shoulders. You have to wonder why this wise head on young shoulders thought it was a good idea for a 30-year-old union official, head of the shop assistants union, to be the one to boldly walk into the Premier's office and say, 'Your time is up.' Do not have the parliamentary colleagues do it but leave it to the trade union leader to be the one to hand out the execution warrant—and of course mess up the execution as they have.

As I said, my concern here is foremost for South Australia, because it is decisions like this hospital funding one that we are going to suffer as a result of this bad Labor govern­ment in South Australia. We have Mike Rann claiming he is going to stay on a little longer to see some key projects through. At the top of that list he highlights the contract­ual negotiations with BHP Billiton over the Olympic Dam uranium mine, the biggest single private investment project in South Australia's history. So who is going to negotiate it with BHP Billiton? Who is going to try to finish the deal? A lame duck leader. We are sending in a lame duck leader who knows he is on the way out and who every­body else knows is on the way out. Senator Feeney is smirking. You are a student of American politics. You know full well, Senator Feeney, that the period between the presidential election and a presi­dent leaving office is described as the lame duck period for good reason. Nobody wants to deal with them. Everybody knows they can manage to screw them over if they want to and, in the end, that is what is going to happen. That is the risk to South Australia with Mike Rann charging on on these negotiations. Mike Rann has said he wants to 'mentor' Jay Weatherill, his replacement. He put out a nice condescending statement that he wants to mentor Jay Weatherill. Of course, he put this statement out from India, and Jay Weatherill kept ringing Mike Rann when he was in India to talk about it. And guess what? The phone was never answered. You can picture it now. Mike Rann picks his phone up to get his voicemail messages, and when he gets message one—'Mike, it's Jay; we need to talk about these issues; could you give me a buzz back'—there is a beep and the message is deleted. Next message: 'Mike, it's Jay. It's really, really important. Please give me a call back.' Beep. Delete that message. Next message: 'Mike, it's Jay. I'm really sorry about the way things are between us, but if you could give me a call I'm sure we can work them out.'

It is quite pathetic. Mike Rann says he wants to mentor the man but then will not even return his phone calls. Then, when he does come back and attends the briefings with BHP Billiton, guess what? He forgets to invite Jay Weatherill. So much for the mentoring. The mentoring is all about being left in the dark. The mentoring is all about being left behind. Mike Rann forgot to invite him to the briefings on BHP Billiton. Even today, we have the right-wing factions—one of their two alternative leaders—out there announcing new policy. Jay Weatherill has not come up with a new policy since he was anointed as Premier, but one of the right's two alternative leaders comes out and starts to announce new policy on urban develop­ment—getting ahead, of course. Why? Because he is not happy with the deal that is done.

John Rau, the Deputy Premier, is still in the mix there as well. It is not that we are a state with one premier or two premiers; we have three people who want to be premier at present in the Labor Party—all of them fighting over it, all of them squabbling over it and all of them putting South Australia last as they do this. We will not see this country health situation fixed. We will not see a good deal for SA on BHP Billiton. We will see South Australia suffer as a result of a gov­ernment that is so focused on its own internal dynamics and so focused on individuals simply wanting the spoils of office, with absolutely no new focus or the vision that our home state needs.

Question agreed to.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I wish to speak briefly to correct a statement I made in relation to my contribution on the decision of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in relation to the apple and pear industry. In my contribution in relation to the decision made by the minister with respect to the import­ation of New Zealand apples, I asserted that streptomycin is banned for use in Australia. I have been advised by the minister—and I accept his advice—that that is not the case. I understand that in relation to the use of streptomycin on crops in Australia, approval can be sought from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. How­ever, it is currently not being used on apples in Australia, because there is no need to use it on apples in Australia. So I wish to correct that, but I maintain my comments about the use of streptomycin in our food chain and the comments and concerns of Professor Peter Collignon in relation to the use of streptomycin.

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

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the response by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that has just been tabled.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I wish to briefly note the Minister for Foreign Affairs' response to the motion passed by the Senate on 5 July relating to the ugly boycott, divestment and sanctions, or BDS, campaign against Israel. Mr Rudd needs to be unequivocal in his condemnation of this campaign, as does the government. Unfortunately, Mr Rudd wilted when it came to opposing those in his own party and the unions who are also supporting this vile campaign. The Senate motion which was carried noted with concern the resolution carried at the 2010 regional conference of the Queensland branch of the ALP to support the BDS campaign; initial support for the BDS campaign against Israel by four Labor councillors on Marrickville Council; the decision by the New South Wales ALP to preference Greens candidate and Marrick­ville mayor Fiona Byrne in the seat of Marrickville at the New South Wales state election; and reports that David Forde, convenor of Labor 4A Just Palestine, who supports the BDS campaign, is a frontrunner for ALP preselection for the Queensland state seat of Stretton.

The motion also denounced support linked to the BDS campaign against Israel by numerous unions and called upon the ACTU to oppose the BDS campaign. In an unpublished comment given to the Age, a spokesperson for Mr Rudd explained the government's position thus:

The government has a longstanding practice of  not dealing with complex foreign policy matters through Senate resolutions and therefore did not support the motion as it was moved by Senator Abetz. The government proposed simpler lang­uage and was disappointed that Senator Abetz chose political point scoring rather than making a strong bipartisan statement in support of Israel.

For the record, Mr Rudd's office never proposed simpler language. The evening before, Mr Rudd's office implored the coalition to take the references to Labor's support for BDS out of the motion. The next morning, Mr Rudd's office said Labor would support the full motion. However, just prior to the debate, Mr Rudd's office said they would not support it and would say that it was a complex foreign policy matter. In the House of Representatives Labor also voted to move sections of a similar motion condemning Greens and Labor Marrickville councillors who supported the BDS campaign. The truth is that Mr Rudd wilts when it comes to opposing those in his own party and in the union movement who support this vile BDS campaign. We see a similar double standard from the Foreign Minister in his reply to the resolution to support the BDS campaign that was carried at the 2010 regional conference of the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party, his own home division. In his reply he played up the government's support for the Palestinian Authority and failed—and I stress this: failed—to dissociate himself from this motion's support for the BDS campaign.

We now see Mr Rudd recommending to the Prime Minister that Australia abstain from the UN vote to recognise a Palestinian state. It is time Mr Rudd put principle ahead of politics. In his, if I might say, quite disrespectful letter to the Senate in response to the motion, he fails to refer to the detail of the Senate's resolution and to the fact that all Labor senators shamefully voted against the motion. Labor and the minister stand con­demned for their vote in this place and for the minister's response, which does not take the strong principled stance that I think the Australian people would want—that is, a strong stance against the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel, which has now shown itself with a demonstration outside a coffee shop because it is owned by Jewish interests. That this has come to pass in this country is unfortunately a result of the failure to strongly oppose the BDS camp­aign. People now think that they can demon­strate outside Jewish businesses in Australia to try to stop customers from going into the shop and doing business. I must say that it has hallmarks of events in the last century that I thought had been well and truly left behind.

The Labor Party does have to come to grips with this. There are many within the Labor Party who take very principled stands in this area. I simply refer to Mr Paul Howes of the Australian Workers Union—and I do not often quote him as an appropriate person. He has taken a strong stance on this and if he can one wonders why Mr Rudd and the rest of the Labor Party cannot.

Question agreed to.

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

I seek leave to move a motion for the Senate to take note of the letter from the Chairman of the Productivity Commission, relating to an order for the production of documents concerning superannuation funds, that has just been tabled.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This letter, which was tabled in the Senate today, is just another example of a govern­ment that steadfastly refuses to be account­able to the parliament and to the Senate in particular. It is a further demonstration of a government that is going to new lows when it comes to being accountable to the Senate, even though Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised after the last election that this would be a new era of openness and transparency in government.

Under government's of both persuasions, whether it was the Hawke government, the Keating government or the Howard govern­ment, statutory agencies like the ACCC, the Australian National Audit Office or a range of others, would regularly comply with orders for the production of documents, including orders for the production of documents that were not yet in existence but had to be created. These documents covered a whole range of issues, whether it was in relation to tobacco policy matters or to any other of a whole range of diverse issues. Incidentally, many of those motions for production of documents were initiated by crossbench senators, whether it was the Democrats, or Senator Fielding, or Senator Xenophon and, indeed, some of them were even initiated by people in the then opposition, such as Senator Conroy. In those days government's of both persuasions would ensure that statutory agencies were in a position to comply with the orders of the Senate.

In November 2010 the Senate agreed to an order that there be laid on the table no later than 31 May 2011 a report by the Product­ivity Commission on the design of a process for the selection and ongoing review of the superannuation funds that were to be included in modern awards or enterprise agreements as default funds, with the requirement that—and I am just summarising here—the process be based on objective criteria and evidence, subject to systematic review and, essentially, that the process be transparent and competitive. And of course the current process is not objective, it is not transparent and it is not competitive. Don't take my word for it. That was the conclusion of the Labor government just over a year ago.

Just over a year ago the Labor government released a policy on superannuation in which they promised to refer to the Productivity Commission the task of designing a process that is open, transparent and competitive when it comes to the selection of default superannuation funds. However, after the election Prime Minister Julia Gillard appointed Bill Shorten as the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and he is very unenthusiastic about doing anything that would remove the current closed shop, anti-competitive arrangements that are in place when it comes to the selection of default superannuation funds under modern awards. This process is quite disgraceful both in substance and process. We passed an order here in November asking for this report to be provided by the end of May 2011. Initially we got some sort of informal advice that 'we don't really think that we can do this; we don't really think that we can comply with this order unless we have got a direction from the minister to do so.' Of course, the minister wants to be able to hold on to this anticompetitive advantage for union dominated industry super funds for as long as possible, and so the minister was not going to say to the Productivity Commission, 'We want you to do this.' But the Senate said to the Productivity Commiss­ion, 'We want you to do this,' and there is a long history of orders of this nature being complied with in the past by agencies like the Productivity Commission.

So the Senate passed earlier this year, in February, another order and we asserted that the Senate has the authority, consistent with past practice and under the Constitution, to require that this information be provided and we confirmed the requirement for this information to be provided by 31 May. What did we hear after that? Nothing. This letter is the first formal advice that we are getting from the government about their response to this order of the Senate, and it is a response saying, 'We're not going to do it and we don't care about what you, the Senate, have ordered us to do. We don't care about the motion that was passed by the Senate ordering us to provide this information. Don't worry about a deadline of 31 May as 10 August is early enough to get back and say that, by the way, we're not going to do this sort of thing.' This is a constant pattern. We had a conversation earlier today and yesterday and Senator Ludlam raised the fact that questions on notice had not been answered for 250 days. I had some questions that had not been answered for more than 150 days. And here we have this refusal to comply with the deadline that is set by the Senate. It was a deadline set in November for the end of May. You would think that was a pretty reasonable deadline, yet this govern­ment cannot comply with a deadline set in November for the end of May. This is the pattern of a government that refuses to be accountable to the Senate. They completely do not take us seriously.

This is a pretty serious issue and related to this is this impasse now in relation to a whole series of orders. There is a whole series of orders, for example, whereby we sought information about the commodity price and production volume assumptions that were at the basis of the mining tax revenue estimates and the government refused outright to provide that information. Supposedly, as part of the agreement between the government and the Greens and as part of the agreement between the govern­ment and some of the key Independents in the other place, there was going to be this process where, whenever there was a dispute between the Senate and the government about matters of public interest disclosure and a Senate order had votes on the floor against the decision of a minister, the Information Commissioner would arbitrate on the release of relevant documents and report to both houses. That was a year ago. The government entered into this agreement and we have now got a whole plethora of orders on the books whereby the Senate has sought to refer matters to the Information Commissioner for him to arbitrate as to whether it is going to be in the public interest or not for certain information to be released. 'No,' the Information Commissioner says, 'I can't do it. I can't do the job'—refuses to do the job. Clearly, this agreement between the government and the Greens is not worth the paper it is written on.

In the meantime working people across Australia continue to be channelled into default superannuation funds that are identified through a process that is not competitive, that is not objective, that is not transparent and that has the risk of people being channelled into underperforming funds. The best way to maximise value for consumers across Australia is by having a proper competitive framework in place. Look at the recent example of the MTAA arrangements where the MTAA was identified as a default fund on a particular award and where some union trustees on the MTAA fund went to Fair Work Australia and asked for the MTAA to be selected as a default fund without declaring the fact that they were actually trustees on that fund. They were going to Fair Work Australia in their capacity as union delegates to ask for a particular fund to be included as a default fund without declaring the fact that they were also trustees of the fund. This is completely inappropriate. The thing is that I have spoken to some very good people, senior leading people across industry super funds, in relation to these issues and some of them have said 'the reason we are selected as default funds is because we perform better'. That is great. And do you know what: if they were to perform better no doubt they would be selected as default superannuation funds in an open, competitive and transparent arrangement. I think that the minister's refusal to act on this clear pre-election commitment by the Labor Party before the last election is actually not doing industry super funds any favours because those that are good are being seen to be favoured and advantaged by a closed shop anticompetitive arrangement when, quite frankly, they would probably thrive in a proper open, competitive and transparent arrangement. If the government still agrees that the current arrangement is anticompetitive and a closed shop arrangement, why would you wait any longer now before you took any action? The reason the minister is not taking any action is that, quite frankly, he is conflicted when it comes to this. He supposedly wants to remove conflicts from financial service advice provision more generally but he does not seem to realise that he himself is conflicted when it comes to policy matters in this area.

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

Order! It being 6.50 pm, I propose the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This year, 2011, marks the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The convention we know today was initially developed to deal with the massive number of people displaced by the Second World War in Europe. We should be proud of Australia's connection with the convention, and we should also be proud of our connection to the negotiation of the United Nations Charter and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

We should not forget the roles of Doc Evatt and Jessie Street and their ground­breaking work at the United Nations Confer­ence on International Organisation—better known as the San Francisco Confer­ence—in 1945. The Australian delegation, led by Doc Evatt with his unique intellect, drive and organisational ability, endeavoured to ensure that social justice and Labor values were injected into the constitutional architecture of the United Nations. While Evatt's contribut­ion is well known, I think it is important that we also recognise that of Jessie Street, an internationalist who campaigned tirelessly for the rights of women. She was the only woman on the Australian delegation to the San Francisco Conference. She was a strong advocate for the removal of restrictions on Jewish migration and for an increased intake of Jewish refugees to Australia. She was an inspiring figure.

As I noted at the launch of Ashley Hogan's book, Moving in the open daylight: an Australian at the United Nations, while Evatt's ubiquity and energy at the San Francisco Conference led to the joke that there were 'ten Evatts', a casual survey of what has been written about him would certainly lead to the impression that there were 'two Evatts'. Of course, there was only one Evatt. He was certainly not as skilled in the art of caucus or party management as Curtin or Chifley, but few leaders, before or since, have been. And it was Evatt's misfor­tune to be leader at a time when the internal pressures and conflicts of the party would have tested the diplomatic skills of the most conciliatory negotiator. However, Doc Evatt has been acknowledged around the world as a most significant international figure.

The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees originated in the League of Nations before Evatt was a figure on the international stage. The first steps—the 1933 League of Nations Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees and the 1938 Convention Concern­ing the Status of Refugees—were significant milestones, but they provided only limited protections for displaced persons. The 1933 convention, for example, had just eight member state signatories, as well as substantial self-imposed limitations on the obligations of those signatories.

At its first meeting in 1946, the newly formed United Nations General Assembly recognised the urgency of the humanitarian crisis in Europe and resolved to find new homes for the millions of displaced people roaming aimlessly across the European continent or languishing in makeshift camps. In 1950 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was formed. The following year, on 28 July 1951, after tough negotiations and legal wrangling by signatories over the sovereignty of states and their responsibilities and obligations in the international system, the convention that underpins the work of the UNHCR was adopted. Australia acceded to the convention on 22 January 1954. That was during the life of the Menzies government.

As an international treaty instrument, it was borne out of the bloodshed and tragedy of the Second World War, but it remains a crucial international treaty in the modern world. While Europe is no longer devastated by a horrendous world war, the convention and its relevance as a refugee classification tool lives on. Throughout the debilitating civil wars in the Balkans, the tumult caused by the break-up of the Soviet Union and ongoing conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, we have been reliant on the terms of the convention to provide vulnerable and displaced people with necessary protections enshrined in law.

In Africa, recent hope provided by the newly independent nation of South Sudan is tempered by events in other parts of the continent—the civil strife in Ivory Coast earlier this year, the recruitment of child soldiers en masse in the Central African Republic and the use of rape as a weapon in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Mr President, 144,000 people registered as refugees in South Africa last year. They are the victims of war and sexual violence who have traversed an entire continent to seek refuge. In 2008, scores of people were killed after a botched armed robbery started fighting that quickly spread through all of Port Elizabeth. This was a massive and violent demonstration against the presence of Somalis in South Africa. And the reason they left Somalia? Ethnic and religious violence.

Closer to home, the human rights needs of the Burmese people, so often highlighted over the last decade, is widely and rightly reported as Asia's refugee focal point. But so much concern still exists over the plight of human rights in Tibet and for Tamil Sri Lankans in their desire for equal rights in their own country. According to the most recent Global Trends figures published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as at January 2010, there were 2,121,630 refugees in Africa, and 4,524,200 refugees in Asia and the Middle East. That is 6,645,830 men, women and children in only two of the six UNHCR designated world regions. We must remember that no-one becomes a refugee by choice. It is a step demanded by circumstances, so often life threatening for individuals and families. It is a step borne out of the sheer determination of the human spirit to survive and protect those close to them.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have gone from a doc to a dope because I would like to talk about the member for Corangamite. My colleague has just spoken about Doc Evatt. There is a false prophet in my patron seat of Corangamite and I am referring to Labor's Darren Cheeseman who, in a desperate effort to sell the Gillard—

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

Mr President, on a point of order: I understand that the senator is trying to be funny but I do not know that the word he used to describe the member for Corangamite is parliamentary. I request him to withdraw it.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member took offence I will withdraw the comment. Mr Cheeseman, in a desperate attempt to sell a price on carbon, turned to a religious metaphor and has warned of the great flood to come. In Noah's time, humanity's sin was that it had become corrupted, but in Mr Cheeseman's mind the Geelong region's sin is that it has become industrious. Cars have been manufactured, cement has been made, meat has been processed, milk has been produced and the manufacturing industry is creating jobs—all sinful activity in the eyes of the member for Corangamite that needs to be stopped by a new tax.

Knowing how badly news of a price on carbon would be taken in Corangamite, Mr Cheeseman needed to create a climate of fear. He drafted a speech that he had planned to give in parliament about the subject which warned of the disaster to come. This speech, however, was never delivered. I assume that someone in the Labor Party—someone in the Rudd government spin machine—knew that the words I am about to quote to the chamber are too crazy to be said in public. That is why if you search Hansard for what Mr Cheeseman said on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill on 9 September 2009 you will not find these words. He must have run them by someone in the Labor Party who told him, 'You can't say that, people will think you're a fool, or the words will simply confirm it.'

But in March 2010, when it came to posting his speech on the website, Mr Cheeseman, through sheer incompetence posted the speech he was going to give, not the speech that he gave. Here is what the false prophet, Mr Cheeseman, the Noah of Geelong, had to say on his website—the speech he wanted to give but even his party would not let him give. I read the speech that was posted on the website, not the one that he actually gave in the other place:

The Great Ocean Road Mr Speaker, an icon of Australia and the engine room of our local tourism economy, will be largely destroyed.

It will be breached in place after place, if sea level rise is as expected.

Huge swathes of the Bellarine Peninsula will be inundated.

Current areas of the mainland will be cut off and become islands.

Queenscliffe will become an island.

The area from Barwon Heads to Breamlea will become an island.

This man is an elected representative of parliament. The member for Corangamite, like Noah who came before him, warns of the Great Flood to come. But is it his global warming religion or science which drives Mr Cheeseman's claims? It is definitely not the science. As was reported exclusively in the Australian on 22 July 2011, the New South Wales government adviser Phil Watson has written a peer reviewed paper which concludes that rises in sea levels are decelerating. Phil Watson's paper questions the connection between climate change and rising sea levels.

Mr Cheeseman's claims that Queenscliffe and Barwon Heads will both become islands is just plain wrong and utterly stupid. Mr Cheeseman's great flood will never happen. But Mr Cheeseman and Labor persist with this carbon tax. Noah's solution was to build an ark and put each of the two animals on it. As Mr Cheeseman has been one of the government's harshest critics of the live animal export trade, this option of course is not available to him.

Mr Cheeseman's 'ark' is a great big tax on industry. It will punish those sinners who will be responsible for the upcoming great flood—the car manufacturers, the meat producers, the dairy farmers, the coalminers and the cement makers. A bit of common sense in this debate would not go astray. Queenscliffe will not be an island, nor will Barwon Heads or Breamlea; the Great Ocean Road will not be destroyed. The people of Corangamite deserve serious representation. They can do a lot better than this doomsday prophet who does not understand the science and never will. They deserve someone who will not make idiotic statements and they deserve someone who actually understands the needs and wants of their local community.

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

One of my most pleasurable duties as Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water is announcing 'firsts', particularly when that first happens to occur in my home state of South Australia. Therefore, it was with a great deal of delight that I recently visited the town of Ceduna on the west coast of South Australia to officially commission the town's new Bureau of Meteorology office and to announce the installation of Austra­lia's first regional vertical wind profiler. The profiler replaces upper air wind observations that would otherwise use weather balloons.

Ceduna has had an operating bureau station since 1939. Interestingly enough, not long after that, my uncle was just off the coast of Ceduna in a ship as he was preparing to enter the Navy. Today it is one of about 50 locations in Australia that are part of a massive global network of surface and upper air monitoring stations. These stations feed data into sophisticated compu­ter models. They are critical to forecasting weather in advance and act as early warning stations, alerting us to severe or hazardous weather conditions.

Of course, Ceduna, with a population of 4,000, is more than just a weather station. It is located on beautiful Murat Bay, about 800 kilometres west of Adelaide and 1,900 kilometres east of Senator Back's home town of Perth. As you would know, Mr President, Ceduna is regarded as the oyster capital of Australia. Murat Bay was declared a town and called Ceduna 110 years ago this year, although locals never called it by its proper name until the railway reached the town in 1915.

The unofficial capital of South Australia's far west coast and the Nullarbor Plain, Ceduna has many tourist attractions, includ­ing whale-watching during the winter months; surfing at Cactus Beach, arguably the best in Australia; and the beautiful and wild Gawler Rangers, which are a comfort­able drive inland. Ceduna is also the location of wheat, barley and oat farming. I was particularly impressed to see just how lush the crops were compared with three years ago when I was there. Ceduna also has wool and sheep enterprises, and the mining of salt, gypsum and mineral sands. Of course, the fishing is great all year round. Smoky Bay and Denial Bay oysters, grown and harvested in the region's pristine ocean waters are amongst the world's finest. The best time to visit Ceduna is on the South Australian October long weekend, when it hosts Australia's largest oyster festival. The Oysterfest features delicious local oysters, both cooked and natural.

But I have got off the topic of weather and I would like get back onto it. Ceduna is actually the first of nine offices nationally to receive one of the new wind profilers I referred to earlier. The model used at Ceduna is a boundary layer profiler, designed to monitor wind speeds in the atmospheric boundary layer near the earth's surface, enabling continuous reporting of winds from about 300 metres to at least five kilometres above the station.

Traditionally, upper atmospheric wind data are collected using weather balloons, released up to four times per day—and quite an expensive operation. This new wind profiler can produce vertical wind profiles every 30 minutes, greatly improving the ability to monitor storms and weather systems, and support accurate and timely forecasts and warnings. It allows the weather radar to provide a 24-hour continuous weather watch for the region, without having to switch to weather balloon tracking mode for several hours each day. The wind profiler is essentially a vertical-pointing radar and works by transmitting and receiving radio frequency energy. It sends up a pulse of energy, which is then scattered back to the profiler.

Turbulent air motion in the atmosphere creates variations in temperature, pressure and humidity relative to the surrounding atmosphere. These variations affect the refractive index of the atmosphere and the scattering of the radio frequency energy. These scatters move with the background wind and as a result the profiler is able to infer the wind speed and direction. Mr President, I see you are nodding and under­standing all of this very comprehensively, as is Senator Colbeck, whom I know has an interest in these sorts of things.

Interestingly enough—and this will particularly impress you, Mr President—a South Australian company ATRAD was the successful tenderer for the supply of the nine vertical wind profilers to the bureau. ATRAD produces state-of-the-art, cost-effective radar systems for measuring and interpreting the state of the atmosphere, and provides excellent scientific and technical advice about remote sensing of atmospheric phenomena. ATRAD is an excellent South Australian success story and produces a range of weather radars, antennas and analysers for China and India as well as for the Australian market.

The Ceduna weather station has also received an upgraded weather radar on a taller tower, at a height of 16 metres—so it is very prominent near the airport—which enables continuous weather surveillance over a greater range, out to approximately 150 kilometres. The new wind profiler and radar provide enhanced weather information, which is of vital importance for South Australia, and also enhance the bureau's national network of observations across land, sea and air. The new facilities help fore­casters understand the weather in an area of Australia where data has been relatively sparse in the past. The facilities will provide valuable information through the bureau's website for the benefit of industry, the aviation and rural sectors, local emergency services and the general public.

Observations started at Ceduna Meteor­ological Office in 1939 when the RAAF, in conjunction with the then Department of Civil Aviation, opened the airport. At that time, the meteorological office was in the terminal building on the north side of the air­port. It operated from there until 1969, when it moved to a new building on the south side of the airport. The new meteorological office reached practical completion on the same sight in June 2010 and has since been staffed by two bureau technical officers.

The office is state of the art and is constructed to be environmentally friendly while withstanding extreme weather condit­ions. The Ceduna office is part of a world­wide network of surface and upper air observing stations, of which there are, as I mentioned earlier, more than 50 in Australia. The data from the station are vital in determining the present state of the weather, as the starting point for providing weather forecasts and are also critical for climate, providing valuable information on long-term trends and variations in local weather. A remote balloon launching facility has been installed, providing staff with a safer way to release hydrogen-filled weather balloons, which will continue to be used now and then to supplement the wind profiler as necessary.

Finally, I look forward to being able to continue talking about Australian firsts, particularly South Australian firsts like these great new Bureau of Meteorology facilities at Ceduna.

Senate adjourned at 19:15

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 16 March 2011:

With reference to Operation Talisman Sabre 2011:

(1) In regard to the Talisman Sabre exercises, what will be the actual cost to the department of the exercises, for example, clean-up operations, monitoring, herding dugongs out of the live fire area etc.

(2) In regard to the AECOM public environment report (PER) concerning the exercises, for which the public comment period closed on 10 December 2010:

(a) how are the unlikely scenarios for which the exercises are intended to prepare the Australian Defence Force (ADF), such as nuclear warfare, weighed up with the actual damage done to the marine and terrestrial environment;

(b) to what extent has the projected or potential impact on the area in which the exercises are to be conducted and, in particular, Queensland's Shoalwater Bay region, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the Coral Sea, been assessed;

(c) who conducted the assessment in paragraph (b);

(d) what were the outcomes of the assessment in paragraph (b);

(e) what assessment has been carried out of the impact of the floods in Rockhampton and the cyclone around Cowley Beach;

(f) if no assessment has been carried out in relation to paragraph (e), why not;

(g) to what extent have the impacts of the floods and cyclone in Queensland altered the planning for the exercises; and

(h) based on the understanding that the Great Barrier Reef and other marine environments have been damaged by the recent extreme weather conditions and given the intense naval activity associated with the exercises, will the department consider postponing the exercises in order to give the region an opportunity to recover; if not, why not.

(3) In regard to the rights of traditional owners:

(a) to what extent has the department, representatives of any other government agency, or the ADF consulted with the Darumbal people, the traditional owners of the Shoalwater Bay area, on the use of Shoalwater Bay for these exercises or any other training exercises;

(b) if there has been consultation, what was the outcome of that consultation; and

(c) if there has not been consultation, why not and will the department consult with the Darumbal people prior to the commencement of the exercises.

(4) In regard to nuclear and chemical risks, the PER acknowledged that live firing can cause environmental contamination:

(a) are military activities exempt from the Commonwealth's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999?

(b) what guarantee can be given that contamination of the natural environment will not occur as a result of the exercises;

(c) will toxic materials such as red phosphorus marine markers, seawater ballast containing introduced species and ship-board waste be introduced into the environment in connection with the exercises; and

(d) will depleted uranium armaments be used during the exercises.

(5) In regard to the use of white phosphorous and explosives that contaminate groundwater, and given that perchlorate, the primary ingredient in rocket fuel, has been found to have contaminated groundwater in 20 United States of America (US) states as a result of its use at rocket test site, military bases and production plants, that it has been linked to thyroid conditions, birth defects and problems with newborn development and that reports indicate it has contaminated food supplies in some parts of the US:

(a) will perchlorate be used during the exercises;

(b) what measures will be taken to ensure perchlorate does not contaminate the marine environment or groundwater in the surrounding area;

(c) what testing has been done to monitor whether the groundwater at Waterpark Creek, Queensland, has been contaminated by perchlorate;

(d) will white phosphorus, TNT or RDX be used in the exercises; and

(e) to what extent will heavy metals, including mercury and lead, be dispersed into the environment during the exercises.

(6) In regard to sonar risks, the PER notes that active and passive sonar will be used:

(a) can it be confirmed that mid to low frequency sonar is associated with whale beaching, brain haemorrhaging, and disruption to breeding cycles;

(b) given that the PER states that 'Australia and the United States are committed to environmental stewardship and take the need to protect marine mammals from the effects of underwater sound sources very seriously' – can the Minister confirm that the US Navy has exemptions from US legislation designed to protect endangered species and to allow their use of sonar virtually anywhere;

(c) is the Minister aware that in 2008 environmentalists in the US took the US Navy to the US Supreme Court to try to stop them using sonar during the Talisman Sabre 2007 exercises in Hawaii because intense sound waves can harm or even kill 37 marine mammals, including sea lions and endangered whales;

(d) what guarantee can the department provide that sonar use during the exercises will not have adverse affects on marine life, including the beaching of whales, brain haemorrhaging in cetaceans and disruption to breeding cycles;

(e) how will the impacts of sonar on whales and mammals be measured during the exercises;

(f) how can the Minister guarantee the war games have not killed or injured cetaceans unless affected animals wash up on shore;

(g) what measures will be taken to mitigate any detrimental impacts of sonar on marine life during the exercises; and

(h) measured from the vessels in yards, how far can the sonar currently being used in the exercises travel, given that the PER proposes that sonar will be suspended if a whale is sighted within 1000 to 4000 yards from a ship.

(7) In regard to the PER, which states that the exercises will destroy 2 hectares undersea in Shoalwater Bay and create significant noise and residue, and that 'the risk of psychological harm to marine fauna' is of concern:

(a) what is the anticipated psychological impact on marine fauna; and

(b) what resources and services will be provided to address the concerns for psychological harm to marine fauna.

(8) Given that Shoalwater Bay is home to the east coast of Australia's biggest endangered dugong population, the PER states the animals will have to be moved away and that during the 2010-11 Supplementary Budget Estimates hearings of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee it was described that large marine animals would be ushered out of the area:

(a) how many dugongs live in the affected area;

(b) what percentage could reasonably be expected to be ushered out of the area; and

(c) what other measures are being undertaken to protect marine life from the effects of excessive sound caused by the exercises.

(9) In regard to noise and impacts on the local community:

(a) what has been done to protect the community of Byfield, Queensland, near the designated live firing range, or any other community in the area, from the risk of fire being caused in nearby forest;

(b) what measures will be taken to avoid excessive noise in habituated areas;

(c) will the US and Australian military honour edicts regarding flight paths to avoid excessive noise in habituated areas; and

(d) can a guarantee be provided that 2 hectares is the maximum area that will be directly affected.

(10)    In regard to waste and water dumping, what measures will be in place to ensure that:

(a) ballast water carrying introduced species will not be dumped in the marine environment; and

(b) shipboard waste, which can starve, amputate, maim and infect marine life, will not be dumped in the marine environment but be disposed of properly.

(11) In regard to social or political impacts that question the rationale behind the exercises:

(a) do the exercises require state or federal environmental impact statements or assessments to be formally assessed by the Commonwealth or state governments;

(b) what independent mechanisms of assessment on the conduct of the exercises are in place;

(c) will the department conduct an analysis of the social impacts of the exercises; if not, why not; and

(d) will the department conduct an analysis of the potential political impact of the exercises in the region in the current geo-strategic environment; 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 Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) Talisman Sabre 2011 is a joint and combined exercise and the funding is broken down across the Services and Headquarters Joint Operations Command (HQJOC). The total cost to Defence to conduct the exercise incorporates the participation of other areas in Defence, and will not be known until after the exercise is complete, including any clean-up operations. For Talisman Sabre 2009 the cost of the exercise to Defence was estimated at approximately $48 million, excluding the cost of ownership of Australian Defence Force (ADF) assets.

It is not possible to separately cost Defence's environmental management of Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011. Environmental management responsibilities for the exercise are incorporated into participating staff's duties as part of Defence's ongoing Environmental Management System. No financial resources will be dedicated to herding dugongs out of live fire areas as this is not the approach that Defence takes to mitigating risks to dugongs. Defence vessels avoid dugongs by altering course, slowing or stopping altogether when encountering these or other marine mammals, and activities such as live fire exercises are suspended if dugongs are at risk of harm.

(2) (a) Talisman Sabre 2011 is a United States (US) led, Australian supported combined exercise focused on the planning and conduct of warfighting. The exercise does not include any scenarios involving training for nuclear warfare.

The environmental impact assessment process is designed to identify the potential risks of exercise activities and mitigate any effects to the extent practical. Talisman Sabre exercises do not cause any significant damage to the environment. It should be noted that Defence training areas like Shoalwater Bay Training Area (SWBTA) have been specifically set aside by the Government for the military to undertake training activities that have some risk of impacts.

Defence has been conducting major combined joint exercises at SWBTA for many years. Capricornia Conservation Council (CCC) observed on 22 March 2011 that 'for the past 16 years, conservation interests have been represented on the SWBTA Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC). CCC has, in the main, been supportive of the measures taken by Defence to study, monitor and manage the SWBTA environment. Recent activities have included improved fire and pest management practices, the temporary closure of roads and damaged sectors to ensure remediation can occur following exercises… CCC believes that Defence has provided effective custodianship of SWBTA.'

Risk workshops are conducted for each Talisman Sabre exercise with Defence, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) and environmental consultants. An example of a previous 2005 workshop which evaluated various Defence activities including nuclear accidents is on the GBRMPA website at:

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/eam/project_examples/defence.

(b) The potential for environmental impacts of major exercises are assessed by Defence in accordance with the requirements of relevant environmental, health and safety laws, international treaty obligations and Defence's own internal policies and procedures. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) also provides environmental advice to Defence on the potential impact of Defence activities on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

(c) As is the case with other major exercises, Defence has undertaken the assessment of Talisman Sabre 2011 using the services of a professional environmental consulting company. The process has also involved regular consultation with representatives from State and Commonwealth environmental regulatory agencies.

(d) The assessment has not yet been completed and will not be finalised until after the final exercise planning conference confirms the activities that will be undertaken as part of the exercise. To date no significant environmental impacts have been identified.

(e) and (g) The condition of Defence training areas are routinely assessed as part of Defence's training area management procedures and environmental management systems.

SBWTA terrestrial areas were not affected by the Fitzroy River flood in Rockhampton in early 2011. So far in 2011 the training area has received large amounts of localised rainfall which has resulted in localised flooding. Defence is actively monitoring on ground conditions and has strategies to enable activities to proceed where the environmental conditions allow activities to occur in a sustainable manner.

Infrastructure maintenance works have continued to occur to conduct repairs and routine maintenance to flood damaged road networks within SWBTA. These works commenced on 25 January 2011 and are ongoing.

Tropical Cyclone Yasi caused vegetation damage at Cowley Beach Training Area (CBTA). Vegetation debris is currently being removed from the track network at CBTA. Only those parts of training areas that are considered suitable for the conduct of activities under the Talisman Sabre banner will be used.

(f) N/A.

(h) No. Most of the naval elements are not located in the Great Barrier Reef but will be operating well offshore in the Coral, Timor and Arafura Seas. Some naval activity associated with the conduct of an amphibious landing will occur at SWBTA. It is not considered that this activity will have any measurable impact on the environmental values of the Great Barrier Reef.

(3)   (a) The Darumbal people have representation on the SWBTA Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC). This meeting is held biannually and membership is made up of local key stakeholders including the GBRMPA, State Government Department of Environment and Resources Management (DERM) and Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI), neighbouring graziers, Forestry Plantations Qld Pty Ltd, conservation group representation, Central Queensland University, fisheries representatives and Rockhampton Regional Council.

Defence provides members with an update of upcoming exercises and activities for SWBTA along with planned works (infrastructure and environmental).

A representative from the professional environmental consulting company who is undertaking the Public Environment Report attended the 12 October 2010 meeting. Members were advised of public consultation dates and locations along with an overview of the Talisman Sabre 2011 exercise concept of operations. All EAC members are provided detailed minutes from the meetings.

(b) The Darumbal member was unable to attend the 12 October 2010 meeting however has been informed of the meeting discussions and provided with the meeting minutes.

(c) N/A.

(4) (a) No.

(b) All emissions and contamination arising from Defence activities associated with the exercises are managed in accordance with international treaty obligations, Australian domestic environmental, health and safety laws, Defence internal policies and procedures and specific exercise plans and protocols. Environmental monitoring data has been collected from water catchments around impact areas at SWBTA which demonstrates that use of SWBTA for military training is not having an impact on neighbours or the Great Barrier Reef. There have not been any significant incidents that have caused contamination of the environment arising from major exercises.

(c) No. All discharges to the environment occurring as part of the exercise are carefully managed in accordance with all relevant environmental laws and procedures. Discharge of sewage and ballast water from ships is strictly regulated to a standard that meets or exceeds the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and particularly for naval vessels operating in the Great Barrier Reef.

(d) No. Defence has repeatedly assured the Australian public over many years that depleted uranium ordnance is not in the inventory of munitions approved for use in Australia.

(5) (a) Yes.

(b) Perchlorate contamination is an issue on military training areas particularly where large numbers of rocket propelled munitions have impacted on training area targets. In Australia, Defence has done some monitoring of target areas to assess whether perchlorate contamination might be a significant issue. Given the comparatively low number of perchlorate containing munitions used in Australia, contamination is not considered a significant risk. No targeting of the marine environment by ordnance containing perchlorate is planned for Talisman Sabre 2011.

(c) SWBTA has an established annual water quality monitoring program consisting of 27 established sites. All sites are freshwater sources. Surface water is tested for a mixture of the following parameters: physiochemicals, nutrients, chlorophyll, pathogens, metals (dissolved), high explosives, petroleum oil and lubricants and pesticides / insecticides.

Water Park Creek is specifically tested for physiochemicals, nutrients, chlorophyll, pathogens, metals (dissolved), high explosives, petroleum oil and lubricants and pesticides/insecticides.

Sandy Creek is tested for physiochemicals, nutrients, chlorophyll, pathogens, metals (dissolved), high explosives and pesticides/insecticides.

Annual testing commenced in April 2011 and results are expected in June 2011. No Groundwater testing occurs on SWBTA.

(d) Yes.

(e) Ordnance is only introduced into the environment in designated target areas. Metals contamination is an issue that Defence routinely manages on its training ranges.

(6) (a) No.

(b) No. Defence understand that the US Navy holds permits from the US regulatory agencies to operate the types of sonar fitted to US ships. Defence is not aware that the US Navy has exemption from US legislation that would permit the use of sonar anywhere in the world.

(c) No. Talisman Sabre 2007 was not held in Hawaii. Australia participated in RIMPAC exercises in Hawaii. Defence understands that the courts in the US did not accept all the claims being made by environmental groups about the potential for sonar to harm marine mammals.

(d), (f) and (g)   As set out in the PER, the use of military sonar during exercises in Australia is strictly regulated by procedures recognised as leading the world in terms of the level of protection afforded to marine mammals.

(e) Procedures require sonar to be shut down if whales approach too close to ships. Defence has funded significant world class research on marine mammal habitat in the Coral Sea, and research outcomes have been used to ensure that sonar activities are not programmed to be conducted in areas where animals are known to congregate.

(h) Sonar performance parameters are classified. However, Defence Science and Technology acoustic experts have advised that the received levels from active sonar will have fallen below levels considered to have the potential to disturb marine mammals within 4,000 yards of the ship. These levels are similar to those mandated for other noise generating activities in the marine environment.

(7) An area of two hectares undersea in Shoalwater Bay will not be destroyed during Talisman Sabre 2011. Underwater demolitions occur at the existing demolitions range in Shoalwater Bay. The area impacted by activities involving demolitions over the past 20 years is approximately two hectares. The pristine marine area of Shoalwater Bay is 164,000 hectares. The Defence impact area represents approximately 0.0012 per cent of the Shoalwater Bay marine area.

(a) The PER identifies accidental physical and/or psychological harm to marine fauna caused by collisions from vessel manoeuvres and amphibious landings as a potential impact to the marine environment. This potential risk and impact is mitigated to an acceptable level through management controls such as the Talisman Sabre 2011 Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and the ADF Maritime Activities EMP. The ADF Maritime Activities EMP dictates strict procedures recognised as leading the world in terms of the level of protection afforded to marine mammals. Procedures in place require activities to cease if marine mammals are detected prior or during the exercise, reducing the risk of physical harm to marine mammals to very low.

(b) None.

(8) (a) Aerial surveys of dugong populations commissioned by GBRMPA have been carried out by James Cook University since 1984. The most recent aerial survey conducted in Shoalwater Bay was in 2005 and the numbers were estimated at 895±295 (population estimate ± standard error).

(b) The PER does not state marine mammals will be ushered out of SWBTA. The claim that large marine mammals are moved is not correct. The mitigation measures in place for Talisman Sabre 2011 used to prevent injury to marine mammals do not include any form of herding, relocation or displacement. The measures require the participants to cease activities if marine mammals are detected during a monitoring period before the activity commences, or during the activity itself.

(c) Talisman Sabre 2011 activities have been carefully programmed to avoid areas where marine mammals are known to congregate. As a secondary precaution, vigilant monitoring and, where necessary, shutdown of activities is mandated by the Talisman Sabre 2011 EMP and the ADF Maritime Activities EMP.

(9) (a) Defence annually produces a hazard reduction burn plan, designed to reduce fuel loads with an aim of securing the training area boundary (from the potential of fire escaping or coming into the training area), protect assets and conducting burns for ecological purposes.

Defence staff and Defence contractors meet with Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Forestry Plantations Qld Pty Ltd and Queensland Fire and Rescue Service annually to discuss proposed burns and work together where possible on combined boundary protection.

Range Standing Orders stipulate that no live firing is to occur within one kilometre of the range boundary. Defence also enforces site restrictions such as restricted use of flares and pyrotechnics in certain sectors of SWBTA to further reduce the risk of fires in certain areas.

(b) Overflight of populated areas by military aircraft is strictly controlled to avoid subjecting people to unacceptable levels of noise.

(c) Yes.

(d) See response to 7.

(10) (a) Ballast water discharge is regulated by the International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) Ballast Water Convention. Participants will manage the marine pest risks posed by ballast water exchange in accordance with the IMO's Ballast Water Convention prior to entry into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. All but a very small proportion of ballast water is embarked and discharged at the same location, preventing significant risk of translocation.

(b) All shipborne wastes are managed in accordance with the IMO's Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (Marine Pollution (MARPOL) 1973/1978). Plastic materials, known to create ingestion and entanglement hazard to marine animals, are banned from being discharged by MARPOL, and Talisman Sabre 2011 participants are required to comply with this international ban.

(11) (a) Defence complies with the provisions of Australia's environmental laws including the Commonwealth's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. Formal impact assessments are only required if the environmental impacts are considered significant.

(b) Environmental reports are prepared by expert environmental consultants engaged by Defence. Environmental risk assessments involve both Commonwealth and State representatives from environmental regulatory agencies. For Exercise Talisman Sabre, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, populations and Communities and the GBRMPA participated in the environmental risk assessments. Where impacts that are likely to be significant are identified these are referred to the Environment Minister for consideration. Defence also has its own professional environmental impact assessment staff who review exercise plans and procedures. For a major exercise like Talisman Sabre an Environmental Management Group is also appointed within the Combined Exercise Control group to advise senior military planners running the exercise on environmental mitigation and compliance issues.

(c) and (d) No. Defence does not consider such an analysis would be an effective use of taxpayer funds.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications':

(1) As at 31 December 2010, how many uniformed personnel, full-time and part-time, were employed.

(2) As at 1 July 2010, how many uniformed personnel were employed on the projects.

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

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

(1) As at 31 December, there were 59,019 full-time and part-time equivalent average uniformed personnel employed. This number, like the workforce data detailed in Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen, reflects full-time equivalent average numbers, known as Average Funded Strength (AFS) for military personnel. Using the AFS approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.

(2) The Government provisioned an additional 1,201 full-time equivalent uniformed personnel for 2010-11 under the White Paper, as reflected in the Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen.

This workforce has been allocated to the Services to implement a range of White Paper initiatives including the Defence Capability Plan. The breakdown by Service is Navy 566, Army 392 and Air Force 243.

These personnel ranged from sailors, soldiers and airmen/women to senior officers on an as needed basis according to the particular White Paper projects and initiatives being actioned, including through the Strategic Reform Program.

Because of the breadth and depth of the White Paper initiatives, the number of personnel varied throughout the specified period and it is not possible to provide a specific total referenced to each White Paper project.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Military Workforce':

(1) As at 31 December 2010, how many civilian personnel, full-time and part-time, were employed in implementing the White Paper initiatives.

(2) As at 1 July 2010:

(a) how many civilian personnel were employed; and

(b) in what programs.

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

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

(1) and (2) (a) and (b) The Government provisioned an additional 1,332 civilian personnel (in Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation, including Australian Public Service staff and contractors) for 2010-11 under the White Paper, as reflected in the publication The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen. This provision applied on both 31 December 2010 and 01 July 2010.

The workforce data detailed in The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers. Using the full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.

This workforce has been allocated across all Defence Groups to implement a range of White Paper initiatives including the Defence Capability Plan.

These Australian Public Service personnel ranged from junior to senior officers on an as needed basis according to the particular White Paper initiatives being actioned.

Because of the breadth and depth of the White Paper initiatives, the number of personnel varied throughout the specified period and it is not possible to provide a specific total referenced to each White Paper initiative.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Military Workforce': For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, how many uniformed personnel, including full-time and part-time, were employed in implementing the White Paper initiatives.

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

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

The Government provisioned an additional 1,201 full-time equivalent uniformed personnel for 2010-11 under the White Paper, as reflected in the publication Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen.

The workforce data detailed in Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers, known as Average Funded Strength (AFS) for military personnel. Using the AFS approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.

This workforce has been allocated to the Services to implement a range of White Paper initiatives including the Defence Capability Plan. The breakdown by Service is Navy 566, Army 392 and Air Force 243.

These personnel ranged from junior to senior officers on an as needed basis according to the particular White Paper initiatives being actioned, including through the SRP.

Because of the breadth and depth of the White Paper initiatives, the number of personnel varied throughout the specified period and it is not possible to provide a specific total referenced to each White Paper initiative.

In relation to the overall military workforce, over the period 01 July to 31 December 2010, Defence employed an average of 59,160 full-time equivalent average uniformed personnel which is 1,842 above the 2010-11 indicative allocation of 57,318 as specified in the Reform Program: Making It Happen publication. This indicative allocation has increased since that time, particularly with the allocation of 447 AFS in 2010-11 to provide to Defence on a no win/no loss basis to cover reserve Army personnel employed on a full-time basis for operations.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Military Workforce': As at 31 December 2010, what increase or reduction has there been in civilian personnel employed, full-time and part-time, in the department and in the Defence Materiel Organisation since 1 July 2008.

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

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

The workforce data detailed in the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications' are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers.

As at 31 December 2010, Defence was employing 21,029 full-time equivalent average civilian personnel, of which 653 were contractors. This is a reduction of -163 full-time equivalent average (-0.8%) since 1 July 2008. This comprises Defence 15,564 (-143, -0.9%) and the Defence Materiel Organisation 5,465 (-20, -0.4%).

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Civilian Workforce': For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, how many personnel, including full-time and part-time, were employed as Australian Public Service staff or contractors.

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

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

The workforce data detailed in the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications' are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers. Using the full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.

Over the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, Defence employed 21,029 full-time equivalent average civilian personnel, of which 653 were contractors.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Civilian Workforce': For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, how many Australian Public Service staff or contractors, including full-time and part-time, were employed on White Paper/SRP initiatives.

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

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

The Government provisioned an additional 1,332 civilian personnel (in Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation, including Australian Public Service staff and contractors) for 2010-11 under the White Paper, as reflected in the publication The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen.

When staff savings resulting from the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) are accounted for, the net White Paper/SRP total reflected in The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen reduces to 1,187. Increases in the targets for efficiency savings since publication mean that the net White Paper/SRP civilian staffing total for 2010-11 was 938 as at 30 March 2011.

The workforce data detailed in The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers. Using the full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall quantity.

This workforce has been allocated across all Defence Groups to implement a range of White Paper initiatives including the Defence Capability Plan.

These Australian Public Service personnel ranged from junior to senior officers on an as needed basis according to the particular White Paper initiatives being actioned.

Because of the breadth and depth of the White Paper initiatives, the number of personnel varied throughout the specified period and it is not possible to provide a specific total referenced to each White Paper initiative.

In relation to the overall civilian workforce, over the period 01 July to 31 December 2010, Defence employed an average of 21,029 full-time equivalent civilian personnel, of whom 653 were contractors. This comprises Defence 15,564 and the Defence Materiel Organisation 5,465. It should be noted that 21,029 is 2,020 less than the projected allocation of 23,049 for 2010-11 as shown in the The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen publication.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Civilian Workforce': As at 31 December 2010, what increase or reduction has there been in full-time and part-time Australian Public Service staff or contractors employed since 1 July 2008.

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

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

The workforce data detailed in the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications' are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers. Using the full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall quantity.

As at 31 December 2010 Defence was employing 21,029 full-time equivalent average civilian personnel, of which 653 were contractors. This is a reduction of -163 full-time equivalent average (-0.8%) since 1 Jul 2008.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, which submarines in the Royal Australian Navy fleet were fully operational ready for tasking with a full crew complement and capable of completing Unit Ready Days and Tasking Ready Days.

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

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

HMAS Collinswasoperational during the period except between mid to end December 2010 undergoing a Certification Extension Docking.

HMAS Waller was operational during the period except between September and October 2010 undergoing an Intermediate Maintenance Activity.

HMAS Dechaineuxwas operational during the period except in December 2010 undergoing an Intermediate Maintenance Activity.

The term 'Tasking Ready Days' is not in use by the Royal Australian Navy.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

(1) For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010:

(a) which submarines in the Royal Australian Navy fleet were non-operational; and

(b) for each submarine that was non-operational, what was the reason for its non-operational status.

(2) What was the cost of maintaining the six submarines for the periods:

(a) 1 July to 31 December 2010; and

(b) 1 January to 31 December 2010.

(3) What was the total cost of operating and sustaining the six submarines for the periods:

(a) 1 July to 31 December 2010; and

(b) 1 January to 31 December 2010.

(4) What were the crewing complements for each of the six submarines for each month in the periods:(a) 1 July to 31 December 2010; and

(b) 1 January to 31 December 2010.

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

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

(1) (a) and (b)

(i) HMAS Collins was non operational mid to end December 2010 undergoing a Certification Extension Docking

(ii) HMAS Farncomb was non operational July to December 2010 undergoing Intermediate Docking

(iii) HMAS Waller was non operational September to October 2010 undergoing an Intermediate Maintenance Activity

(iv) HMAS Dechaineux was non operational in December 2010 undergoing an Intermediate Maintenance Activity

(v) HMAS Sheean was non-operational throughout in Full Cycle docking and

(vi) HMAS Rankin was non-operational in layup, awaiting Full Cycle docking

(2) Cost of maintaining the six submarines for the periods:

(a) 1 July to 31 December 2010 – Maintenance plus inventory $155.4m

(b) 1 January to 31 December 2010 – Maintenance plus inventory $356.8m

(3) Cost of operating and sustaining the six submarines for the periods:

(a) 1 July to 31 December 2010

Operating costs($16.1m) + sustainment costs($155.4m) = $171.5m

(b) 1 January to 31 December 2010

Operating costs($31.2m) + sustainment costs($356.8m) = $388m

(4) Crewing complements for each of the six submarines for each month in the period:

(a) 1 July to 31 December 2010 –

(i) HMAS Collins, Waller and Dechaineux full complement throughout

(ii) HMAS Farncomb, Sheean and Rankin uncrewed throughout

(b) 1 January to 31 December 2010

(i) HMAS Collins full complement February to December 2010

(ii) HMAS Farncomb full complement January to February 2010 and then uncrewed for remainder of period

(iii) HMAS Waller full complement throughout

(iv) HMAS Dechaineux full complement throughout

(v) HMAS Sheean uncrewed throughout

(vi) HMAS Rankin uncrewed throughout

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010:

(a) how many fully qualified personnel are 'Dolphin Qualified' and permanently employed in the Royal Australian Navy to operate submarines; and

(b) how many 'Dolphin Qualified' personnel were tasked with other duties and what were these duties.

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

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

(1) (a) 542.

(b) 79 These personnel are employed in a variety of positions within strategic and operational headquarters. Duties include logistics support, project management, capability development, and senior staff officer roles.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, how many personnel fully completed training courses and became 'Dolphin Qualified' and eligible to serve on submarines.

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

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

Forty-nine personnel completed training and became submarine qualified during the period 1 July to December 2010

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, how many personnel completed training courses and became 'Perisher Qualified' and eligible to command a submarine.

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

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

No personnel completed the Submarine Command Course during this period

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

As at 31 December 2010, how many Royal Australian Navy personnel are 'Perisher Qualified' and eligible to command a submarine?

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

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

Twenty Royal Australian Navy personnel were 'Perisher Qualified' and eligible to command a submarine as at 31 December 2010.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2011:

For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, which submarines were undergoing maintenance/refit programs and for what length of time.

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

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

(1) HMAS Collins – entered Certification Extension Docking Mid December 2010

(2) HMAS Farncomb – conducted defect rectification period and a scheduled docking from July to December 2010

(3) HMAS Waller – conducted an Intermediate Maintenance Activity from September to October 2010

(4) HMAS Dechaineux – conducted an Intermediate Maintenance Activity in December 2010

(5) HMAS Sheean – was in Full Cycle docking from July to December 2010, and

(6) HMAS Rankin - was in layup awaiting Full Cycle docking from July to December 2010.

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

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

(1) With reference to Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011, including the costs of the exercise and the Public Environment Report (PER):

(a) what is the total cost to the department of the Talisman Sabre exercises;

(b) what proportion of this cost will Australia be paying;

(c) what was the cost to the department of the preparation of the PER by AECOM;

(d) given that the public submission period closed in December 2010:

(i) how many submissions were received; and

(ii) how was participation advertised.

(e) is the department aware of a local campaign to get Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011 cancelled in order to use the money for the Queensland recovery;

(f) will the Talisman Sabre games take place anywhere in Western Australia; and

(g) following Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011, will any submarines from the United States of America (US) be landing in Fremantle to engage in 'border protection' or 'piracy' work.

(2) With reference to the details of the exercise, including what and who is involved:

(a) when will Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011 be occurring;

(b) what are the dates for the live firing parts of the exercise;

(c) in which parts of Australia will the war games be taking place;

(d) how many Australian troops will be taking part in the war games, listed separately:

(i) Army;

(ii) Navy; and

(iii) Air Force.

(e) how many troops from the US will be taking part in the war games, listed separately:

(i) Army;

(ii) Navy; and

(iii) Air Force.

(f) will the Australian Federal Police participate in the exercise;

(g) will the Defence Signals Directorate, the Australian Secret Intelligence Services, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, or any other Australian intelligence agencies, participate in the exercise;

(h) will US intelligence agencies participate in the exercise;

(i) will military or other personnel from countries other than Australia be observing Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011; if so, for what purpose;

(j) is there any way of knowing what class of nuclear submarines will be used; and

(k) will unmanned aerial vehicles be used throughout the exercise.

(3) With reference to the stakeholders:

(a) who is identified as a stakeholder for the purpose of consultation in Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011;

(b) how will consultation with the traditional owners of the land and seas used in Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011 take place;

(c) who is consulted about the use of:

(i) the Coral and Arafura Seas;

(ii) the Bradshaw and Delamere Range sites in the Northern Territory;

(iii) Brisbane Port;

(iv) Shoalwater Bay;

(v) Cowley Beach; and

(vi) any other areas of operation.

(d) do traditional owners have any right to dissent to actions involved in Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011;

(e) what is the contingency plan for the event that protesters trespass onto a military area during the live phase of the exercise;

(f) given that, in past Talisman Sabre exercises, certain media has been invited to special events, including press conferences in Brisbane and elsewhere, ship visits and trips into the military zone at Shoalwater Bay, while independent media, such as community radio stations and freelance filmmakers and journalists have not been included in these invitations:

(i) what process is entailed in determining which media personnel are invited, and

(ii) will community radio and other independent media-makers be invited to media events for Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011; and

(g) can the department confirm that there is a mosque in the Urban Warfare Training Facility in the Shoalwater Bay Training Facility; if so, is its purpose to assist in practice military operations against mosques.

(4) Given that the Exercise Talisman Saber 2009 Environment Post Exercise Report, dated January 2010, suggests that there were no significant environmental incidents in regard to whale surveys, some ground surface damage management, and back burning or fire management issues, yet includes no information about the impacts of live firing, mine countermeasures and anti-submarine warfare:

(a) what were the impacts of live firing, mine counter measures and anti submarine warfare;

(b) what measures will be taken to measure and minimise harmful contamination to the water in Shoalwater Bay; and

(c) what actions were taken by the military between 2007 and 2009 to lessen the potential impacts of military exercises on migrating whales, in particular, and other flora and fauna.

(5) Will depleted uranium weapons be used during the joint military exercise; if so:

(a) where will they be used;

(b) how many will be used;

(c) are the surrounding communities aware that depleted uranium weapons will be used; and

(d) has the Government completed any analysis on the human health effects of exposure to depleted uranium weapons.

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

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

(1) (a) Talisman Sabre 2011 (TS11) is a Joint and Combined exercise and the funding is broken down across the Service Groups and Headquarters Joint Operations Command. The total cost of the exercise will not be known until after the exercise is complete and all bills paid, including any remediation activities. For Talisman Sabre 2009 the cost of the exercise to the Department of Defence was estimated at approximately $48 million, excluding the cost of ownership of Australian Defence Force (ADF) assets.

(b) The Commonwealth will fund all costs directly associated with the participation of ADF forces in the exercise and ancillary tasks related to the provision and stewardship of the training areas.

(c) The contract with AECOM Australia Pty Ltd for the Public Environment Report (PER) provides for the conduct of a risk management workshop at the TS11 Initial Planning Conference, preparing and publishing the document, organising the public information displays, organising and manning the 1800 phone line, producing five Fact Sheets, and the production of hard copies and DVDs of the PER. The contract price is $164,000.

(d) (i) Fifteen written submissions were received following the promulgation of the PER, as well as approximately 30 verbal comments and inquiries at the manned Public Information Days at Yeppoon, Rockhampton and Rockhampton North.

(ii) Requests for input from the general public and invitations for active participation in the public information days were advertised in the local newspapers in Rockhampton, Townsville and Darwin, and also in unmanned displays in the libraries at Rockhampton North, Rockhampton South, two locations in Townsville, and in Darwin.

(e) No.

(f) The exercise takes place in NT and QLD and the adjacent waters.

(g) The ADF does not disclose Australian or allied submarine movements. Border protection in Australian waters is a sovereign responsibility and is conducted solely by National assets.

(2) (a) The exercise will be held 11-29 July 2011.

(b) The live fire activities occur 11-17 July 2011 and 27-29 July 2011. Live firing activities involve combined forces – air, land and sea.

(c) The exercise occurs primarily in Defence exercise areas between Rockhampton and Townsville and the adjacent waters. Some activities will also occur around Darwin, RAAF Base Tindal (near Katherine), Delamere Air Weapons Range and Bradshaw Training Area, near Timber Creek, and in waters in the Timor Sea.

(d) It is anticipated approximately 8,500 Australian personnel will participate in the military training exercise Talisman Sabre 2011 (TS11) in the Shoalwater Bay Training Area near Rockhampton, Australia, and in the Townsville Field Training Area from 11-29 July 2011.

(i) Army: 5,400;

(ii) Navy: 1,600; and

(iii) Air Force: 1,500.

(e) The exact composition of the US participating units is undetermined as it is impacted by real world relief efforts, particularly in Japan. More fidelity on the US force participation will become available closer to the exercise however approximately 20,000 people are expected. A list of participating forces will be made available via a link on www.defence.gov.au/globalexes.cfm.

(f) Yes. A detachment of 12- 14 Australian Federal Police (AFP) personnel will participate.

(g) Defence does not comment on the activities of intelligence agencies.

(h) Consistent with the practice of successive governments, I do not intend to comment on intelligence matters.

(i) Yes. The purpose of the international observer's day is to demonstrate the combined capabilities, strength and openness of the alliance between Australia and the United States to the broader region.

(j) A Los Angeles Class attack submarine is scheduled to participate in the exercise.

(k) Yes, within the Shoalwater Bay Training Area – as conducted in 2007 and 2009.

(3) (a) (i) Australian Minister of Defence;

(ii) US Secretary of Defense;

(iii) Queensland and Northern Territory local governments and interest groups;

(iv) Relevant sea port and airport authorities;

(v) US Department of State;

(vi) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade;

(vii) Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service;

(viii) Commonwealth and State regulatory agencies e.g.: Australian Quarantine Inspection Service, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Queensland Department of Environment and Resources; and

(ix) Australian community through the Defence Public Environment Report process.

(b) The approach that is applied to indigenous engagement regarding the use of training areas or other land or sea areas for training is multi-pronged. The method of consultation is tailored to the differing requirements of the local indigenous group or groups involved. In some areas, Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) or Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) require consultation to be undertaken in a particular way. Land councils often take a role under ILUA or MOU arrangements. In other locations there are well-established local Environmental Advisory Committees that meet regularly and on which traditional owner groups are represented. There are also Heritage Management Plans for most major training areas that have been developed in consultation with relevant indigenous groups. These Plans require consultation for certain types of actions or activities in certain areas, depending on their nature.

From a Civil Lands perspective, the Defence Support Group Regional staff routinely advise all ADF Units undertaking activities to consult with the respective Land Councils and where necessary apply for permits to access traditional country. This process is currently managed via Defence's Directorate of Operations and Training Area Management (DOTAM) who have civil liaison personnel to administer these arrangements.

For Talisman Sabre specifically - the exercise is cyclic and is now a routine activity. Indigenous consultation has occurred through the Environmental Advisory Committee meetings, through routine consultation with land councils or other traditional owner groups and individuals, as required under Individual Land User Agreements or Memorandums' of Understanding.

(c) (i) Defence activities in the international waters of the Coral and Arafura Seas that may impact members of the public are de-conflicted through routine mechanisms that advise areas that are restricted due to naval activity or for the conduct of live firings.

(ii) In the Bradshaw Range area Defence complies with the consultation requirements of the local Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA). In Delamere, consultation with the Local Land Council is conducted routinely, every six months, for planned activities.

(iii) When scheduled, ship port visits to Brisbane Port are coordinated through appropriate Federal and State authorities.

(iv) - (v). In the Shoalwater and Cowley Beach areas, Traditional Owner Groups are represented on the respective Environmental Advisory Committees. Additionally, the local Shoalwater Bay Training Area Regional Environmental Officer (REO) is in regular contact with the Darumbal people's representative. Further community engagement in May and June will build on this relationship. More broadly, Defence engaged environmental consultants to develop a Public Environment Report as part of the environmental impact assessment process. This process included community engagement with local communities in Rockhampton, Wide Bay, Townsville, Cowley Beach and Tully. Defence also works closely with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts to ensure Defence training activities continue to protect the unique environment of the Great Barrier Reef. AQIS was consulted about US force elements landing directly into Shoalwater Bay to ensure that US forces comply with Australian Quarantine requirements. Rockhampton Council, GBRMPA, Queensland Police, and local community groups were consulted regarding exercises activities occurring in Shoalwater bay training Area and exercises support activities in Rockhampton.

(vi). As addressed in the response to question (3)(b) and (c).

(d) Traditional owners have the right to express their concerns during any of the consultation processes or separately if desired. Traditional owners in Bradshaw, Delamere, Townsville, and Shoalwater Bay have not advised Defence of any dissent to the conduct of the exercise.

(e) Appropriate contingency plans have been developed and will be constantly updated. It is not appropriate to divulge the plans for security reasons.

(f) (i)-(ii) Media alerts will be distributed for specific Talisman Sabre activities. All media interested in covering TS11 are required to undertake media accreditation prior to gaining TS11 access. The media accreditation proforma will be available on the TS11 official website. Accreditation and induction for media attending the exercise is a requirement for occupational health and safety reasons.

(g) The Urban Operations Training Facility at Shoalwater Bay provides essential military training in urban environments to the ADF and it has been deliberately constructed to be culturally neutral while representative of the urban environments the ADF is likely to operate in or currently operates in. There is a religious building of no denomination that is part of the fictitious society created for training purposes. There is no mosque.

(4) (a) Live fire exercises during Talisman Sabre 2009 (TS09) were restricted to specific target areas within Defence training ranges. Some fires did result but these were all contained within Defence training range boundaries. Whale sightings were recorded and vessels implemented the appropriate procedures whenever whales were in the immediate vicinity – no incidents were recorded. Mine countermeasures training is undertaken using simulated underwater mines made of concrete – these are retrieved at the end of the training – there were no identified impacts. Anti submarine warfare training using military sonar was undertaken in areas away from features likely to attract whales, and well out to sea away from the main humpback whale migratory route. Standard operating procedures for both Australian and US ships required that sonar operations cease if whales were sighted too close to warships operating sonar equipment. These procedures are well rehearsed and effective. There were no known impacts on marine mammals.

(b) Water quality is routinely monitored in the Shoalwater Bay Training area. It has never indicated that military activities pose any significant threat to the water quality of Shoalwater Bay or the Great Barrier Reef. Strict protocols that generally exceed the obligations that apply to commercial, tourist or recreational shipping and boating apply to all warships participating in the exercise, particularly in relation to discharges of sewage and other shipborne waste, management of fuels and other chemicals.

(c) In 2009 Defence developed the TS09 Environmental Management Plan to guide key participants through the environmental management requirements for TS09. This document has evolved over several major exercise iterations. This Plan compliments the ADF Maritime Activities Environmental Management Plan that was first promulgated in 2004 and has been updated regularly since to incorporate new advice. Guidance on whale avoidance incorporates the results of surveys in the Coral Sea conducted by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, the RAN and a number of Universities, in 2008 and 2009, into whale distributions, particularly that of beaked whales. These surveys informed the development of mitigation measures. During the same period however, a number of studies were conducted on land and air operations to introduce mitigation measures to minimise the impact on flora and fauna by such things as hydrocarbon emissions and aircraft noise. As an example the RAAF Air Operations Environmental Management Plan was developed between 2006 and 2009.

(5) (a) No. Depleted uranium munitions will not be used during TS11. Depleted uranium munitions are not in the ADF inventory and not permitted for use by foreign or domestic forces within Australian territories.

(b) Nil.

(c) Not applicable

(d) Not applicable.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 April 2011:

(1) What involvement has the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) had in developing the replacement submarine project.

(2) What specific tasks has DSTO undertaken at the direction of the SEA 1000 office.

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

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

(1) DSTO is providing expert, objective scientific and technical support to the SEA 1000 program. This includes the research and development planning and execution.

(2) DSTO has undertaken, or is undertaking, scientific and technical tasking for SEA 1000 in the following areas:

(a) S&T Support to Capability Development Documentation.

(b) Submarine Modelling and Capability Analysis.

(c) Submarine Sensor Technologies Studies.

(d) Combat Systems Studies.

(e) Power and Energy Systems Studies.

(f) Submarine Main Storage Battery Studies.

(g) Off-board Deployed Systems Studies.

(h) Hull Material, Fabrication and Inspection Studies.

(i) Submarine Signature Technologies.

(j) Submarine Hydrodynamics and Propeller Studies.

(k) Crewing and Human Systems Integration Studies.

(l) Submarine Systems Integration Studies.

(m) Submarine Logistic Support Concepts.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 April 2011:

(1) How many staff from Defence Science and Technology Office have been, or are currently, assigned to tasks associated with the design of the Collins Class replacement submarine.

(2) What tasks did each of these officers undertake and for what period.

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

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

(1) and (2) The Defence Science Technology Organisation (DSTO) is not involved in tasks associated with the “design of the Collins Class replacement submarine”. However, DSTO is engaged in long-lead Research and Development activities that benefit the Collins Class submarines and the Future Submarine Program. In addition, DSTO is supporting the SEA 1000 project on a range of scientific and technical analysis activities.

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

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 June 2011:

In regard to the Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative and revenue transparency and in reference to the answers to questions during the 2010-11 additional estimates in February 2011 which stated that the United States of America (US) Dodd-Frank Act ‘does not demonstrably reduce corruption’:

(1) Is the Government aware that:

(a) the British and French Governments have publicly stated their support for extractive industry reporting rules in the European Union, similar to the US Dodd-Frank rules; and,

(b) the European Commission is now developing legislative proposals to improve extractive industry disclosure requirements.

(2) Is the Government aware that the Hong Kong Stock Exchange enacted a similar extractive industry disclosure requirement in 2010.

(3) Does the Government accept that secrecy of oil, gas and mining company payments to governments can foster government corruption and violent conflict in resource-rich countries.

(4) Does the Government agree that:

(a) initiatives such as the US Dodd-Frank Act can contribute to improving transparency of extractive industry payments and that this transparency is essential for tackling corruption and reducing poverty in resource rich, poor countries; and

(b) making public the revenues that governments receive from oil, gas and mining companies will make those governments more open and more accountable to their citizens.

(5) Does the Government agree that making public the revenues that governments receive from oil, gas and mining companies will make these industries more transparent to investors.

(6) Given that many companies and other stakeholders believe that extractive industry disclosure requirements should be adapted across all major markets to ensure a level playing field and consistent reporting across countries, what is the Government’s position on this.

(7) Will the Government commit to engaging in dialogue with stakeholders – including Australian mining oil and gas companies, investors and civil society – on possible Australian requirements for extractive industry disclosure similar to the US Dodd-Frank Act; 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:

(1) (a) The Government is aware that some European Governments have indicated support for extractive industry reporting rules in the European Union. (b) The Government is aware that the European Commission has consulted stakeholders regarding country-by-country reporting by multinational companies but has not yet brought forward draft legislation.

(2) The Government is aware of the new Chapter 18 requirements for extractives companies newly listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

(3) Yes. In countries with weak governance frameworks, or the absence of the rule of law, government corruption can be a serious problem. The Government supports improved governance arrangements to help address this.

(4) Refer to response to Question 3.

(5) The Australian Taxation Office regularly publishes details of revenue received by industry sector.

(6) The Government believes that action on this subject is most effective if coordinated globally, and is working with other G20 nations to achieve this.

(7) The Government continues to engage with stakeholders to ensure Australia’s governance arrangements remain world’s best practice.

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

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 June 2011:

Given the imminent release of the updated Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises which provides the Government with a timely opportunity to make a significant investment in promoting the guidelines among Australian businesses that operate overseas, and to consider the institutional arrangements, independence of and resources available to the Australian National Contact Point.

(1) What additional resources will be made available to the National Contact Point to promote the updated guidelines among Australian businesses operating overseas and among other stakeholders.

(2) Will the Government commit to understanding the institutional arrangements of other national contact points and commit to a public process that seeks to strengthen the institutional arrangements of the Australian National Contact Point; 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:

(1) A communications strategy is being developed and will be implemented to promote the updated guidelines amongst multinational enterprises operating in or from Australia. Appropriate resources will be applied to implementing this strategy.

(2) The Australian National Contact Point, a senior Treasury officer, recently met with other National Contact Points (notably from the UK and Netherlands) at the annual meeting of National Contact Points at the OECD to garner a more direct understanding of the different institutional arrangements of other national contact points. Following further consideration of the advice received on the various models for National Contact Point in other OECD and adhering countries, the NCP will revamp consultation processes with multinational enterprises and other interested parties.

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

asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 15 June 2011:

With reference to a recent Four Corners program on Australia's live cattle trade with Indonesia, on what dates did Four Corners:

(a) take film footage of Indonesian abattoirs; and

(b) view and come into possession of film footage taken by animal activists

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:

Four Corners first met with RSPCA and Animals Australia (AA) on 31 March 2011. At this meeting where members of the program team saw an excerpt of the footage AA had filmed in Indonesia. The program began conducting its own investigation from that point including submitting requests for journalist visas for Indonesia. The program received an early draft of the RSPCA's scientific analysis of the AA's footage and the many hours of unedited footage from AA in early April 2011; the footage required lengthy viewing and logging.

Four Corners began filming in the Top End with various cattle producers and industry representatives. Indonesian visas were approved on 28 April 2011 and the crew left for Indonesia the following day. The program filmed at abattoirs over the next 9 days. The crew then returned to Sydney to view material shot, write and edit the program as well as carry out further interviews until broadcast on Monday 30 May 2011.

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 15 June 2011:

Did Centrelink contract with Ms S Foster of Sutton for $10 000 of 'cosmetic services' between June 2010 and June 2011 as per contract notice 351334:

(a) if so:

(i) what services were supplied,

(ii) what was the reason for this purchase,

(iii) who received the service,

(iv) what procurement method was chosen,

(v) if an open procurement method was chosen, did this entail an open approach to market and/or an open tender process,

(vi) if the requirement for these services was advertised, or published as a Request for Tender (RFT), can this be supplied,

(vii) were these services sought by Centrelink's National Support Office,

(viii) what was the actual cost of the services supplied, and

(ix) is Centrelink intending on purchasing any more such services; and

(b) if no 'cosmetic services' were purchased by Centrelink:

(i) what services were supplied as per contract notice 351334,

(ii) what was the reason for this purchase,

(iii) who received the service,

(iv) what procurement method was chosen,

(v) if an open procurement method was chosen, did this entail an open approach to market and/or an open tender process,

(vi) if the requirement for these services was advertised, or published as a RFT, can this be supplied,

(vii) were these services sought by Centrelink's National Support Office,

(viii) what was the actual cost of the services supplied, and

(ix) is Centrelink intending on purchasing any more such services.

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 contracted with Ms S Foster of Sutton for $10 000 of 'cosmetic services' between June 2010 and June 2011 as per contract notice 351334.

(a) Centrelink produces professionally-produced video content to inform and educate the community about essential government payments and services through Front-of-House video played in Centrelink Customer Service Centre waiting areas. Centrelink also produces training videos, DVDs and Video on Demand packages for staff. For major productions, individuals are provided with appearance preparation services appropriate for filming purposes.

(i) The supplier provided appearance preparation services for officers required to be filmed for official purposes, and operated autocue for recordings.

(ii) Centrelink does not have professional camera, audio or appearance/autocue personnel on staff. These services are contracted on an as-needed basis.

(iii) Various Centrelink and DHS staff involved in production and on-camera work.

(iv) The procurement method was indicated incorrectly in AusTender as an Open Tender. The correct method of procurement was Direct Source. The AusTender record was amended on 21st June 2011 to reflect the correct procurement method. In line with normal practice for procurements under $80,000, the procurement was conducted through sourcing quotes from the only two suppliers that can supply the full range of services in the Canberra region.

(v) An open procurement method was not used.

(vi) There was no Request for Tender.

(vii) Yes.

(viii) $7,880.

(ix) Yes.

(b) These services were supplied as per contract notice 351334, therefore the questions listed under part (b) of the Senator's question have not been answered.

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 15 June 2011:

(1) What contingency planning has been undertaken by the department to deal with the reduction in funding for heritage core tasks such as identifying heritage places and providing statutory protection advice.

(2) What full-time equivalent staff numbers are being considered in contingency planning by the department to deal with the reduction in funding for heritage.

(3) What number of National Heritage assessments is being considered for the 2011-12 financial year, given cuts in the department's human and economic resources.

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 has undertaken an extensive planning and transition process in order to ensure the maintenance of its core heritage responsibilities.

(2) The projected average staffing level in the heritage area under the restructure is 78. The new structure will be reviewed after six months to identify and address any emergent issues not already identified during planning.

(3) Five assessments in the Australian Heritage Council work plan will be considered.

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

asked the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, upon notice, on 22 June 2011:

In regard to research and development (R&D) and its conversion to outcomes:

(1) What is the total Federal Government spend on investment in Australian R&D in each financial year.

(2) What proportion of this funding is subject to milestone achievements based on its application to industry or practical use such as in health or environment, that is, how much is translated into tangible outcomes.

(3) What funding is available for translation or commercialisation of this research to help service existing small business in Australia.

(4) What quality assurance measures are conducted by AusIndustry to ensure its programs are administered in the same way across all states.

(5) Do states have the same areas of priorities or are priorities determined on a state by state basis.

(6) Does AusIndustry conduct any customer surveys of those who interact with its grant programs; if so, where are the results of those surveys published.

(7) What statistics does AusIndustry gather to measure the outcomes of its programs.

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) The full details of total Federal government investment in R&D are reflected in the Science, Research and Innovation Budget tables. Data for the 10 years up to and including 2011-12 are below and are available on the DIISR website.

The totals in millions of current dollars for each year are:

(2) All assistance for R&D provided through competitive granting programs is based on the merits of the R&D compared with other applications and is tied to milestone achievement. Technical success in any R&D project is not always guaranteed because of the risk inherent in undertaking R&D. However, the merit criteria used for determining the awarding of assistance in competitive granting R&D programs includes an assessment of the applicant's ability to successfully undertake the project and assessment of the commercial prospects for the project outcome. Assistance for R&D provided by way of a legislated entitlement program (principally the R&D Tax Concession) is determined by whether the proposed activity is R&D and whether the claimed expenditure is R&D in nature. A successful commercial outcome is not a mandated requirement of this assistance recognising, again, the inherent risk in undertaking R&D and recognising the value and role that R&D activity plays in economic growth.

(3) Commercialisation Australia assists Australia's researchers, entrepreneurs and innovative firms to convert their promising intellectual property into successful commercial ventures. The program has funding of $278 million over the five years to June 2014 and $82 million a year thereafter.

(4) Some AusIndustry programs are delivered across AusIndustry state offices while others are delivered solely by one state office. All programs have a Program Manager and a program management team. All programs have delivery processes, procedures, and guidance material. Program managers are responsible for ensuring that each state office involved in the delivery of their program is trained in the use of the program's guidelines and processes and adheres to those guidelines and processes. A matrix of reporting complements this activity. From time to time, external or internal audits are undertaken to confirm delivery processes and in particular the consistency of delivery arrangements across states.

(5) The priorities are determined by the Program Manager with overall responsibility for the delivery of a program against the background of the Department's overarching priorities. Individual state offices of AusIndustry do not determine their own priorities.

(6) AusIndustry does conduct surveys of customer satisfaction with program delivery. Head-line customer satisfaction results are published each year in the Department's Annual Report.

(7) AusIndustry does not conduct surveys in regard to the conversion of R&D into outcomes.

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

asked the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, upon notice, on 22 June 2011:

In regard to venture capital funding and start-ups:

(1) How much public funding has been used to assist or subsidise the growth of early stage venture capital funds in Australia over the past five years.

(2) Of those start-up companies that venture capital funds were able to successfully grow and exit:

  (a) how many were there; and

  (b) how many are still headquartered in Australia.

(3) What was the proportion in which the exit was through sale to a foreign venture capitalist or private equity firm, or the start-up was required to relocate its headquarters offshore.

(4) What has been the immediate return on taxpayers' funds to Australia.

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) Between 1 July 2005 and 30 June 2010, $146.00 million has been provided by the Australian Government's early stage venture capital programs: the Innovation Investment Fund, Pre-Seed Fund, Innovation Investment Follow-on Fund and the Renewable Energy Equity Fund.

(2)(a) Since the start of the programs listed under Question 1 to 30 June 2010, 181 investee companies have been supported and there have been 41 exits of which 19 companies have returned greater than cost.

  (b) The location of companies which are no longer in these programs is not monitored.

(3) These metrics are not monitored.

(4) Since the start of the programs listed under Question 1 to 30 June 2010, a total of $141.75 million has been returned to the Australian Government.

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

asked the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, upon notice, on 22 June 2011:

(1) What is the level of collaboration between small business in Australia and the research sector compared with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] average.

(2) What percentage of the Government's total innovation budget supports the establishment of such collaboration and de-risking of technology.

(3) (a) How many small and medium enterprises have accessed research and development (R&D) through the Researchers in Business Program; and

(3) (b) why is more not being done to encourage greater uptake of publicly funded R&D by small business.

(4) What is the total and the proportion of Enterprise Connect funding that results in 'new to the industry' or 'new to the world' innovation.

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) Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are defined as those with less than 250 employees for the purposes of comparing with other OECD countries. SME collaboration on innovation with higher education institutions was 3.1 per cent for Australia. This latest figure ranks Australia 13th out of 23 OECD countries in this indicator. SME collaboration on innovation with government institutions was 2.9 per cent for Australia. Based on this latest figure, Australia ranks 9th out of 22 OECD countries. There is no OECD average calculated for collaboration.

(2) The Science, Research and Innovation Budget Tables are the only compilation of the Australian Government's total innovation budget. The document contains a limited amount of data (as specified by OECD requirements for Government Allocation On R&D) from a wide array of portfolios, departments and agencies, covering hundreds of individual programs. That data collection does not require departments to estimate the proportions of programs relating to collaboration or de-risking of technology, and consequently this data is not available.

(3) (a) 78.

(3) (b) The Government's broad range of innovation programs strongly supports R&D by small business.

(4) All Enterprise Connect program funding is directed at increasing innovation in SMEs, whether it supports 'new to industry' or 'new to the world' innovation. Data is not collected to break this down further.

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

asked the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, upon notice, on 22 June 2011:

(1) How many companies have received proof of concept funding from Commercialisation Australia since it was established.

(2) How is their progress measured and reported.

(3) How many applicants have applied for such funding.

(4) What happens to unsuccessful applicants.

(5) Are unsuccessful applicants helped in any way, for example, are they given tools or other mentoring to assist them develop.

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) Sixty nine companies have been offered proof of concept funding from Commercialisation Australia since it was established.

(2) Participants are required to report progress against the milestones as outlined in the funding agreement. The funding agreement requires participants who receive a proof of concept grant to provide regular reports to the Department—including a baseline data report; quarterly progress reports; an end of project report and audited financial statement; and periodical and annual post project reports. Participants are also required to complete a survey or provide information to assist with an evaluation of the program.

(3) One hundred and thirty five applicants have been considered for proof of concept funding.

(4) Unsuccessful applicants are provided with constructive feedback on why their application was not successful for support under Commercialisation Australian. Where appropriate they are referred to other suitable Commonwealth, State or Territory programs. Many applicants also benefit from the application process itself. The application form requires them to consider key business questions and they also receive constructive feedback from Case Managers.

(5) As outlined in response to Question 4, applicants are referred to other suitable Commonwealth, State or Territory programs which may include tools or mentoring services.

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

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 June 2011:

In the case of a company or individual which donates the use of a private plane to Nauru for members of a federal political party, would the company or individual be eligible for a tax deduction for the cost of the flight.

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:

In the situation described, it is unlikely that a company or individual would be eligible for a tax deduction for the cost of the flight.

Amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 effective from 1 July 2008 removed:

Political contributions and gifts made on or after 1 July 2008 must meet several requirements to be tax deductible under subdivision 30-DA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.

The donor must be an individual and the contribution or gift must not be made in the course of carrying on a business.

The recipient must be:

Commonwealth Electoral Act1918

Even if the contribution or gift is made by an individual in their personal capacity and not made in the course of carrying on a business, there are other requirements that would not be met in this case. The contribution or gift must be $2 or more, and be:

To be tax deductible under this subdivision, there must be a transfer of money or property. Therefore there is no deduction for the gift of a service, for example, the use of a private plane as neither money nor property has been transferred. If however property has been transferred as part of providing the service, a deduction may be allowed in relation to the property.

If it could be ascertained that some property was donated, the most that contributors or donors may claim in an income year is:

Only employees or office holders may claim deductions for political contributions incurred in earning assessable income as a general deduction.

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

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 June 2011:

With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 156 (Senate Hansard, 8 February 2011, p. 137) relating to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Mr Brooke Groombridge:

(1)   In regard to the answer to paragraph (3) and generally: did the ACCC advise Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd that it decided not to pursue the matter in response to its receipt of the AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report; if so:

  (a)   when was the Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd advised by the ACCC; and

  (b)   when was the AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report received.

(2)   In regard to the answer to paragraph (8):

  (a)   who authored:

     (i)   the letter dated 29 November 2005 to Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd, and

     (ii)   the draft letter dated 13 December 2005 for the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer (Mr Pearce);

  (b)   which area in the ACCC deals with the functional responsibility of product safety policy and how many people work in this area; and

  (c)   given the change in the terminology in the two letters referred to above, not to include the word 'seriousness' in the second letter, can the Treasurer advise if:

     (i)   any available information had changed; and if so, what was it, and

     (ii)   a change in professional assessment was undertaken; if so, by whom and on what basis.

(3)   What documentary evidence, if any, did the ACCC have in its possession to 'establish' the reason for the bike component failure.

(4)   In regard to the answer to paragraph (12), does the ACCC acknowledge that it has no basis for describing the bicycle examiners as 'bicycle specialists'.

(5)   In regard to the answer to paragraph (13), was the ACCC unaware that the bicycle examiners were both authorised Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd dealers, and does the ACCC consider such a relationship disqualifies the examiners from being considered 'independent'.

(6)   In regard to the answer to paragraph (18):

  (a)   are the ACCC's Melbourne office staff who dealt with Mr Groombridge's complaint the ACCC's representatives on the Standards Australia Technical Committee for pedal bicycles; if so, do each of the staff hold technical qualifications, and in each case what are those qualifications;

  (b)   were the staff referred to fully acquainted with the preface of AS/NZS1927 (1998); and

  (c)   were any ACCC staff who were representatives on the Standards Australia Technical Committee for pedal bicycles consulted about the assessment of the HRL Technology Pty Ltd Compliance Assessment Report; if so, when.

(7)   In regard to the answer to paragraph (19), can the ACCC provide examples where it alleges Mr Groombridge has selectively quoted and misled; if so, can examples be provided.

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:

(1) Yes, at least in part.

(1) (a) ACCC advised Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd that the Melbourne office would not be pursuing the matter in a letter dated 22 December 2005.

(1) (b) The AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report was received under cover of a letter dated 21 December 2005.

(2) (a) (i) The letter of 29 November was signed by the (Melbourne) Deputy Regional Director, ACCC.

(2) (a) (ii) As the letter dated 13 December 2005 is a draft only and has no particular status, contributors to the drafting process cannot be ascertained with certainty.

(2) (b) The product safety policy function now resides in the Product Safety Branch of the ACCC. Within the Branch, many staff contribute to product safety policy development. A Regulatory Policy Section has also been established in the Branch. That section currently has four staff.

(2) (c) Given that the letter of 13 December 2005 was a draft only (which did not progress to final) and the content had not been settled, comparing expressions used in that draft with the content of the letter of 29 November 2005 does not appear material.

(2) (c) (i) Whether or not available relevant information had changed between 29 November 2005 and 13 December 2005 cannot be ascertained from available records.

(2) (c) (ii) Whether or not further professional assessment of the issues was undertaken between 29 November 2005 and 13 December 2005 cannot be ascertained from available records.

(3) As at 13 December 2005, the ACCC did not hold documentary evidence which established the precise reason for the component failure on Mr Groombridge's six year old bicycle.

(4) The ACCC was advised that the persons who examined Mr Groombridge's bicycle were specialist bicycle retailers with some years of experience in the bicycle industry.

(5) Bicycle retailers are often authorised resellers of a range of bicycle brands. The ACCC had no reason to question the merits of the examiners' opinions.

(6) (a) No.

(6) (b) The staff concerned no longer work for the ACCC. Their familiarity or otherwise with the preface of AS/NZS 1927 (1998) is not known.

(6) (c) Yes. While the timing of that consultation cannot be accurately ascertained from available records, it most likely first occurred around the time the HRL Reports were first received in November 2005.

(7) In his letter to the ACCC dated 4 August 2009, Mr Groombridge quoted approximately 30 extracts from ACCC correspondence and materials spanning a number of years. All such selective quotes have the potential to be misleading to persons unfamiliar with the full context.

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

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 June 2011:

With reference to the luxury car tax changes where exemptions were made for particular categories for vehicles associated with primary production and tourism, can details be provided on how many vehicles and individuals have been provided with the exemption since the implementation of the scheme.

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:

Under sections 18-5 and 18-10 of the A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Act1999, eligible primary producers and tourism operators are able to apply for a refund of the luxury car tax paid for certain cars. The amount of luxury car tax refundable is up to $3,000 of the luxury car tax paid. Primary producers are limited to a refund entitlement of one car per financial year.

Between 1 July 2008, the commencement of the scheme and 25 July 2011, a total of 610 individuals/businesses were provided with a refund of luxury car tax. Of the 610 claims paid, 591 were for vehicles used by primary producers and 19 for vehicles used by tourism operators.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 4 July 2011:

In a post on the Prime Minister's blog dated 30 May 2011, the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) wrote, 'The best way to cut carbon pollution is to make up to 1000 of our biggest polluters pay for every tonne of carbon pollution they generate. Not households. Not small businesses. Just the top 1000 polluters': Can a list be provided detailing each of the top 1000 polluters that the Prime Minister was referring to in her post.

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

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

I am advised that the carbon price will be applied to those companies that have operational control over a facility that emits over 25,000 tonnes annually of CO2-e emissions, except where those companies are in sectors not covered by the carbon price.

Estimates of the number of companies that will be liable to pay a carbon price is largely based on emissions data previously reported under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 (the NGER Act).

Of the estimated 500 businesses to be subject to a carbon price:

Given that only greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption data can be published by the Greenhouse and Energy Data Office, it is not possible to provide details of corporations listed on the NGER Register as this would breach secrecy provisions under the NGER Act

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

asked the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, upon notice, on 4 July 2011:

In regard to former Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) employee, Mr David Reid:

(1) Was Mr Reid dismissed on 17 June 2011.

(2) Was Mr Reid's letter of dismissal hand delivered to him in a local pub.

(3) Does ANSTO management consider this an appropriate means of conducting human resources business.

(4) Did ANSTO management televise a copy of this dismissal letter over the internal network at the Lucas Heights facility on 23 June 2011, and was that the vision showing in the cafeteria in Building 23 during a staff meeting; if so, what was the intention of ANSTO management and has ANSTO management breached Mr Reid's privacy.

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) Yes.

(2) The letter was delivered to Mr Reid at a venue and time of his choosing. The only ANSTO requirement was for the handover to occur in a public place, remote from the Lucas Heights site, for security reasons. No private details were discussed during the handover of the letter.

(3) As per the answer to (2).

(4) No.

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 6 July 2011:

With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 659 (Senate Hansard, 16 June 2011, p. 137), regarding preliminary discussions between the department and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum about a possible intermodal facility at Parkeston and its potential use for uranium transport:

(1) Who is the proponent for this facility.

(2) Is the proponent a corporation or joint venture between multiple corporations.

(3) Is there any formal arrangement between the proponent and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum.

(4) Has there been any discussion about the financing of the facility.

(5) At what stage of planning is the facility.

(6) Are there any preliminary designs of the intermodal facility.

(7) What minerals or materials would the facility be in aid of.

(8) Have there been any preliminary discussions on the location of the facility within Parkeston.

(9) Has there been a referral of the facility to any state or federal government department.

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 proposal has not been referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, consequently a proponent has not been determined.

(2) See answer to question 1.

(3) The department and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum have not discussed this matter.

(4) The department and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum have not discussed this matter.

(5) Planning for the facility is understood to be at a very early stage. Neither the department nor the minister have been involved in the planning process so I am unable provide a more definitive answer to this question.

(6) The department has not seen any preliminary designs.

(7) This would be a matter for the proponent in the first instance.

(8) The department and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum have not discussed this matter.

(9) 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 Prime Minister, upon notice, on 15 July 2011:

With reference to the answer to question no. 40 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, what was the destination/s and purpose/s of the trip Mr Rudd requested, which was not approved by the Prime Minister.

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:

A number of ministers, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs, proposed to attend an Australian tourism promotion event and undertake related meetings in the United States in January 2011. It was decided that the Minister for Tourism should attend on behalf of the Government.

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 Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 19 July 2011:

With reference to the answer to question no. 164 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee which stated that the 'draft responses to questions on notice 71 and 72 [from the 2010-11 additional estimates hearings in February 2011] were submitted to the Minister's office on 23 March 2011' and given that the answers to questions 72 and 71 were not provided to Senator Abetz until 23 May and 24 May 2011, respectively: what is the Minister's reason for the transmission of these answers being delayed for 2 months.

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:

Draft answers to questions on notice 71and 72 were provided to my office on 23 March 2011. Question 72 was sent back to the department for redrafting on 5 April 2011 and resubmitted to my office on 7 April 2011 for consideration.

The answers to these questions were approved for tabling on 23 May 2011.

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

asked the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, upon notice, on 21 July 2011:

In regard to the attendance of Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) personnel at the Berri Barmera Council meeting held in Berri, South Australia on 19 April 2011:

(1)   Were the representatives from ANSTO invited by the council or did the department offer or request a place on the council meeting agenda.

(2)   Have any other councils in any state or territory been given similar deputations; if so, when and where did these occur.

(3)   Are there plans or has there been discussion regarding similar presentations to be given to other councils; if so, when and where.

(4)   Since the 19 April 2011 meeting in Berri, has there been any further correspondence between ANSTO and the Berri Barmera Council; if so, can a copy of this correspondence be provided.

(5)   Can a copy of the notes or presentations used by the ANSTO representatives to address the Berri Barmera Council be provided.

(6)   Can a copy of the report given to the Minister following the deputation be provided.

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)   ANSTO's attendance was at the request of the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.

(2)   ANSTO also participated in a briefing to the Palmerston Council on 5 July 2011. That participation was also at the request of the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.

(3)   ANSTO is unaware of any such discussions. This question should be directed to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.

(4)   No.

(5)   Yes. A copy of the presentation has been provided to the Senate Tabling Office and can be provided on request.

(6)   ANSTO did not prepare a report for the Minister.