Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian companies, apparently with the support of the federal government, are trading in phosphate mined in Western Sahara with no benefits going to the local people. Western Sahara, illegally occupied by Morocco, is Africa's last colony. The Moroccan government has no title to the resources that it is selling. The three Australian companies involved are Incitec Pivot, Impact Fertilisers and CSBP, which is part of Wesfarmers, which owns Coles supermarkets.

Morocco is the biggest phosphate exporter in the world, with 70 per cent of its foreign currency income coming from the phosphates trade. Even though it is 30 years since the Moroccan occupation, no country recognises that Morocco incorporates Western Sahara. The African Union and over 80 countries, including most African nations, do recognise the government of Western Sahara—the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. International court rulings have determined that Morocco has no legal rights in Western Sahara.

Morocco has close allies in France and the US, both of whom are on the United Nations Security Council. They have used their veto power to prevent the UN from enforcing resolutions calling for Morocco's withdrawal, or at least a free and fair referendum. The Australian government has expressed its support for a referendum, but meanwhile it is doing nothing to stop the trade in Saharan phosphate.

Barrister Tim Robertson SC has called on the Australian companies involved in this phosphate trade to stop their imports from the region. He believes these importers are breaching international law and could end up having to pay compensation. Incitec Pivot and the other companies state on their import declaration forms that the phosphate is from Morocco. As that is not the case, it appears these companies are breaching the Customs Act, which in Australia is a criminal offence.

The United Nations has not imposed sanctions but has condemned the trade. The Australian fertiliser companies importing phosphate are aware of the UN position but say they will continue to buy phosphate until the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade warns otherwise. Exiled Western Saharans and their supporters have said that this trade and the Australian money that goes to Morocco helps maintain the illegal occupation of Western Sahara.

In 2007, when the ALP was in opposition, their national conference agreed to back self-determination for Western Sahara and all UN resolutions to that effect. But since forming government Labor has essentially followed the policy in force during the Howard years, allowing Australian companies to benefit from theft from the people of Western Sahara. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, should provide a lead now he is looking to engage more extensively in Africa.

Australia increased aid to Africa by over 40 per cent to an estimated $165.2 million in 2009-10 and this trend is set to continue. For the financial year ending 30 June 2011, Australian exports to Morocco reached $29.3 million and imports from Morocco totalled $88.7 million. Does the foreign minister support voting in the UN General Assembly for Western Saharan self-determination? Will the foreign minister take a stand on violations of human rights in the occupied territories of Western Sahara? Will the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade recommend that Australian companies stop importing phosphate from the Western Sahara while the trade is controlled by the Moroccan government?

The European parliament is starting to shift on Western Sahara. The EU's development and budget committee has called on its parliament to reject the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement. It is time Australia reassessed its position on Western Sahara. We have a direct link to the exploitation of the land and its people. Catherine Lewis, a spokeswoman for the Australia Western Sahara Association, summed up this connection with phosphate from Western Sahara: 'The food on every Australian's table is fertilised by this stuff, so I believe this issue affects everyone in their daily lives.' I congratulate the Australia Western Sahara Association for their work on this issue and I look forward to a statement from the foreign minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, about the status of Western Sahara.

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

As White Ribbon Day approaches this coming Friday, 25 November, it is timely to reflect on the campaign to eliminate violence against women both in Australia and overseas. I seek leave to incorporate my speech on White Ribbon Day.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

In Australia today one in three Australian women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15, and almost one in five have experienced sexual violence.

Gendered crimes such as domestic and family violence and sexual assault remain unacceptably high in our community and in communities in our region and beyond.

In Australia, our Indigenous women and girls are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised than other Australian women and girls.

What is most alarming is that for the majority of women who have experienced this type of violence, it has happened in their own homes, by men who are known to them.

In addition to the obvious personal costs to the women involved, this violence costs our community in a number of ways.

A 2009 KPMG report commissioned by the Federal Government found that violence against women and their children cost the Australian economy $13.6 billion per year.

The economic impact was expected to rise to $15.6 billion by 2021.

That report also found that domestic and family violence was the major cause of homelessness for women and their children.

Physical and sexual violence against girls and women is shaped by attitudes and social norms, gendered inequalities of power, and a wide variety of other social factors.

We know that one key factor in defining gender relations and norms are men's attitudes and beliefs towards women.

The bulk of the research and evidence about gender roles and relations suggests that men who do not hold patriarchal and hostile gender norms are less likely than other men to use violence against women.

It is also important that our social norms and practices do not tolerate violence in intimate relationships or against women more generally.

Further, we need to ensure that women in our community are not isolated and can access resources and systems of support.

Whilst we know that we have some way to go, there are many initiatives in our community and beyond that are aimed at ending violence and promoting equality.

White Ribbon Day is one example and represents Australia's only national male-led campaign to break the silence and take action to prevent violence towards women in our community.

On the 6 December 1989, a man walked into a Canadian university and massacred 14 of his female classmates. His actions traumatised a nation and brought the issue of violence against women to the forefront of our collective consciousness.

Following this tragedy, a group of Canadian men decided that they had a role and responsibility in speaking out about stopping men's violence against women. Their efforts led to the White Ribbon Campaign held annually between 25 November and 6 December.

Subsequently, in 1999 the United Nations General Assembly declared 25 November as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, with a white ribbon as its iconic symbol.

Here in Australia, White Ribbon Day began in 2003 and we now play a role in what is regarded as the largest global male-led movement to stop men's violence against women.

The campaign works to change the attitudes and behaviours that lead to men's violence against women, working to shift social norms, gendered inequalities of power, and other social factors.

The key part of the White Ribbon initiative is inviting men to swear an oath never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women.

This oath represents an active commitment to promote positive attitudes and behaviours towards women.

On 25 November each year, men and women across Australia are encouraged to wear a white ribbon as a symbol of this oath.

The wearing of the ribbon and swearing of the oath represents our commitment to the campaign, affirming the personal role that we all must play in challenging and changing the attitudes and behaviours which contribute to violence against women.

It is great to see thousands of male ambassadors swearing an oath and supporting the White Ribbon campaign.

Among the supporters there are sportsmen, celebrities, comedians, politicians and men from around Australia who have all made a personal and collective commitment to ending violence against women.

Of course it is also great to see women working alongside these men around Australia to promote the campaign.

And I believe that the campaign really is gaining momentum.

At last count almost 17,000 Australians had sworn their support.

In addition, around Australia there are events being held this Friday to mark White Ribbon Day.

In my home state of Tasmania there are a number of events state-wide with the official White Ribbon site hosted by Unions Tasmania, Zonta Women's International and the Department of Police and Emergency Medicine.

Just this weekend, I was pleased to see our major newspapers around Australia publishing articles about ending violence against women and the White Ribbon campaign.

One example was an article by David Penberthy which featured in the Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun.

In his piece, Penberthy wrote about the role men can play in taking a stand on violence against women.

Penberthy also talks about the gap between the zero-tolerance rhetoric on violence towards women in the immediate personal setting and instances of violence towards women in the more distant context of friends and acquaintances, neighbours and work colleagues.

Penberthy's article helps highlight the need to break the silence—and foreshadows the work of Dr Michael Flood from the University of Wollongong in preventing men's violence against women.

Dr Flood's latest work is to be released on Friday to coincide with the 2011 White Ribbon Day campaign and I look forward to that report.

It is also important to acknowledge the work of the Australian Government in reducing violence against women and children.

The national plan to reduce violence against women and their children is an action plan and framework that has been endorsed by COAG.

The plan articulates the path towards achieving an Australia where women and their children live free from violence in safe communities.

It contains six key national outcomes to work towards from 2010 to 2022 to reduce the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual assault, increase the proportion of women who feel safe in their communities, reduce deaths related to domestic violence and sexual assault and to reduce the proportion of children that are exposed to their mother's or carer's experiences of domestic violence.

Overall, the plan highlights that whilst living free from violence is everyone's right, reducing violence is everyone's responsibility.

As women and men here in Australia, in our own homes, in our local communities, within our region and beyond we must continue to express and work towards a vision for a violence-free world.

We can all play a role in breaking the silence.

We can all work to ensure that we maintain strong networks of services by and for women who have survived violence.

The first and most basic step is having an open dialogue with the women and men in our lives about equality and respect.

In the lead-up to White Ribbon Day, we have an even greater opportunity to build awareness about violence against women.

We must continue to teach our daughters and our sisters to expect equality for themselves and others.

We need to teach our sons and brothers to question sexism and reject violence, to respect women as equals, and to change systems based on concepts of dominance.

We all need to support one another and protect ourselves.

We should do this with a sense of pride and empowerment as we continue the campaign to end violence against women at home and abroad.

Senate adjourned at 19:59

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice, on 29 August 2011:

(1) How many Code of Conduct investigations have there been within the Ministers portfolio for the financial years: (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011-to date.

(2) How many investigations established: (a) a breach; or (b) no breach, of the Code of Conduct.

(3) In each case, what provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached.

(4) What penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken.

(5) How many investigations are ongoing.

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

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

(1) There were five Code of Conduct investigations commenced in the 2010-11 financial year within the Minister's portfolio. No Code of Conduct investigations have been commenced in the 2011-12 financial year.

(2) Three Code of Conduct investigations established breaches of the APS Code of Conduct. Two Code of Conduct investigations were discontinued due to employee resignation.

(3) The cases involved suspected breaches of various provisions of the APS Code of Conduct, as follows:

Case One involved suspected breaches of subsections 13(1), (2), (3), (4), (7), (11) of the Public Service Act 1999 (the Act).

Case Two involved suspected breaches of subsections 13(5), (8), (11) of the Act.

Case Three involved suspected breaches of subsections 13(1), (2), (11), (13) of the Act.

Case Four involved suspected breaches of subsections 13(1), (2), (11) of the Act.

Case Five involved suspected breaches of subsections 13(1), (2), (5), (7), (8), (9), (11), (13) of the Act.

(4) The sanctions applied, when a breach of the APS Code of Conduct was determined, varied due to the individual circumstances of each case. The sanctions applied were as follows:

Case One:

a reassignment of duties;

a deduction from salary, by way of a fine; and

a reprimand.

Case Two:

a reduction in salary; and

a reprimand.

Case Three:

a reassignment of duties:

a deduction from salary, by way of a fine; and

a reprimand.

(5) No investigation is ongoing.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice , on 12 September 2011:

How many corporations are registered under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 and can the name of each Corporation, listed on an individual state/territory basis, be provided.

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

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

As at 20 September 2011, 2313 corporations were registered under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006. The table below provides details of the total number of corporations registered on a state/territory basis.

A list of registered corporations in each state/territory is available free of charge from the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) website, www.oric.gov.au. Thelist of registered corporations changes day-to-day and it is therefore recommended that the names of all registered corporation be downloaded directly from the ORIC website when it is required.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice on, 19 September 2011:

In regard to the manufacturing sectors support for trade exposed industries:

(1) Does the department agree that approximately one million people are employed by Australia's manufacturing sector.

(2) How many of these manufacturing workers are employed in sectors that will receive assistance under the Government's Jobs and Competitiveness Program.

(3) Has the department an estimate of the number of manufacturing jobs shielded by its Jobs and Competitiveness Program; if not, why not.

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

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

(1) As of June 2010, the manufacturing industry employed approximately 950,000 people (ABS 8155.0: Australian Industry, 2009-10).

(2) Businesses across all manufacturing sectors will be eligible to apply for assistance under either the Jobs and Competitiveness Program (JCP) or the Clean Technology Program (CTP).

The JCP will provide assistance to manufacturers that generate over 80 per cent of the manufacturing sectors emissions. Further information on eligible activities is available at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/jobs-competitiveness-program.aspx

The Government's CTP, amounting to $1.2 billion over the forward estimates, has been developed to provide support to manufacturing industries not eligible for assistance under the JCP. The CTP includes three components:

(3) A comparison of the number of workers in industries shielded from a carbon price is not an appropriate measure of the effectiveness of a scheme in preventing carbon leakage and providing transitional assistance. The JCP targets assistance to industries that are particularly emissions-intensive and therefore most exposed to the impact of the carbon price. The targeted nature of the JCP means that it will provide assistance to manufacturers that generate over 80 per cent of manufacturing sector emissions.

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is likely to provide far less assistance to the more emissions-intensive sectors under phase III of the EU ETS than proposed under the JCP. This is because under the EU ETS:

In addition, the EU ETS has less tightly targeted assistance than the JCP. In the EU ETS, assistance is provided to a wider range of sectors, some of which are trade-exposed but not very emissions-intensive. Given that the total pool of permits available to industry is capped, increasing the number of sectors that are eligible for assistance potentially reduces the assistance provided to any given sector.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, upon notice, on 4 October 2011:

(1) Is the Minister aware that the Victorian Department of Transport is ignoring the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (the Act) by ordering $300 million worth of new trams which do not meet federal standards?

(2) Will the Commonwealth be providing any of the funds for these trams?

(3) Has any rationale been provided as to why the decision was made to order these new trams when they did not comply with the requirements of the Act?

(4) Is the Minister concerned that the Victorian Department of Transport in ordering trams that do not meet federal standards is discriminating against people with a disability?

(5) Is the Minister concerned that people living with a disability will not be able to use public transport?

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

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

(1) The Victorian Department of Transport has advised my Department that the E-Class trams that it is procuring are compliant with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002.

(2) No

(3) Not applicable

(4) Not applicable

(5) Not applicable

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

asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 12 October 2011:

In regard to the Building the Education Revolution program: (1) How many schools used the program funding to build a vegetable or kitchen garden, a kitchen or school dining facility. (2) Can a breakdown of these schools be provided by state and territory.

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

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

The Australian Government has committed funding of $16.2 billion to provide new facilities and refurbishments in Australian schools to meet the needs of 21st century students and teachers through the Building the Education Revolution (BER) program.

Under BER Guidelines, Education Authorities were required to report on a range of project types. Vegetable or kitchen gardens, kitchen or school dining facilities were not identified for reporting as a discrete project type.

While schools may have included such features in their projects, for example kitchens/canteen facilities are often included in multipurpose halls, the Department is unable to provide the information sought, as this level of detail is not required to be reported.

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 31 October 2011:

(1) What discussions were held by the Ministers and/or the Prime Minister, their offices or Departments with the Australian Mens Shed Association (AMSA) involving the appointment of Mr Andrew Stark as its Communications Manager.

(2) What funding has the AMSA received from the Government in the 2010-11 financial year and how much will it receive in the 2011-12 financial year.

(3) Was any of the funding provided to the AMSA on the basis that it would appoint a Communications Manager; if so, what were the reasons and proposed job description for the position; and was the department involved in the selection process.

(4) Has the Minister or Prime Minister provided a reference to Mr Stark; if so, can copies be provided of any written reference or notes from a call.

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:

(1) None.

(2) The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has not provided any funding to the Australian Men's Shed Association.

(3) Not applicable.

(4) No.

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

asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 31 October 2011:

In regard to the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), right of entry provisions: (1) Is it open to Fair Work Australia to issue an exception certification in certain circumstances; if so, what are these circumstances. (2) Have any exception certificates been granted by Fair Work Australia; if so: (a) how many; and (b) in what circumstances. (3) What restrictions are placed on a permit holder's powers to protect confidentiality and trade secrets. (4) Which party bears the costs of: (a) a right of entry; (b) staff time allocated to the right of entry; and (c) photocopying for the purposes of the exercise of a right of entry.

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

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

(1) Section 519 of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides that Fair Work Australia must issue an exemption certificate to an organisation for an entry under section 481 (which deals with entry to investigate suspected contraventions) if:

(2) One exemption certificate has been granted by Fair Work Australia on the basis that Fair Work Australia reasonably believed that advance notice of the entry given by an entry notice might result in the destruction, concealment or alteration of relevant evidence.

(3) Section 504 of the Fair Work Act 2009 deals with the use or disclosure of information or documents obtained in the investigation of a suspected contravention of the Fair Work Act or a term of a fair work instrument.

(4) The Fair Work Act 2009 makes no provision as to which party bears the costs of: (a) a right of entry; (b) staff time allocated to the right of entry; and (c) photocopying for the purposes of the exercise of a right of entry.

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

asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 1 November 2011:

In relation to section 335 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009: (1) How many written notices requiring evidence and documents have been given and of these how many have been complied with. (2) In relation to any instances of non-compliance under this section what actions have been taken by Fair Work Australia (FWA). (3) Has FWA sought external legal advice on the operation of these provisions; if so, with what results, from whom was that legal advice sought and at what cost. (4) Having regard to the powers which have been conferred on other regulators, does FWA believe its investigation powers under section 335 are sufficient to allow it to discharge its duties as supervisor of trade unions and employer associations. (5) Is FWA aware that other Commonwealth agencies with investigation and information gathering powers report on the use of such powers in their annual report to Parliament, and will FWA provide such information to Parliament in future annual reports.

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

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

(1) (i) Fifteen written notices requiring evidence and documents have been given. (ii) No answer is provided as to the question of how many of these notices have been complied with.

Consistent with the Senate's Order of 13 May 2009 governing the raising and treatment of claims of public interest immunity in committee proceedings, FWA considers the provision of information would be harmful to the public interest. FWA is of this view for the following reasons.

This part of the question seeks information including information relating to ongoing investigations. Disclosure of information sought during the period of the conduct of an inquiry or investigation may prejudice any future legal proceedings in relation to contraventions found to have occurred. Disclosure of the information requested could potentially prejudice any investigation into any non-compliance with such notices.

(2) Consistent with the Senate's Order of 13 May 2009 governing the raising and treatment of claims of public interest immunity in committee proceedings, FWA considers the provision of information would be harmful to the public interest. FWA is of this view for the following reasons.

This question seeks information including information relating to ongoing investigations. Disclosure of information sought during the period of the conduct of an inquiry or investigation may prejudice any future legal proceedings in relation to contraventions found to have occurred. Disclosure of the information requested could potentially prejudice any investigation into any non-compliance with such notices.

(3) FWA has sought external legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor to assist with the conduct of current investigation as a whole. The advice would in part have dealt with the operation and preparation of written notices under section 335 of the RO Act. It is not possible to separately identify the cost of legal advice sought from the Australian Government Solicitor specifically in relation to the operation and preparation of written notices under section 335 of the RO Act.

(4) FWA has not to date undertaken a comparative assessment or analysis of the powers conferred on other regulators as against the investigation powers under section 335 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.

(5) FWA is aware that some Commonwealth agencies with investigation and information gathering powers report on the use of such powers in their annual report to Parliament. FWA will review what information is included in future annual reports.