Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present four government responses to committee reports as listed at item 16 on today’s Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report:

Inquiry into proposals to lift the professional, ethical and education standards in the financial services industry

August 2017

Australian Government Response to the Senate Economics References Committee

Interim report: Personal choice and community impacts: bicycle helmet laws (term of reference d)

May 2017

Introduction

As part of its inquiry into personal choice and community impacts, the Senate Economics References Committee invited submissions addressing a number of specific terms of reference. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development made a submission addressing: "The economic and social impact of legislation, policies or Commonwealth guidelines, with particular reference to: d. bicycle helmet laws, including any impact on the health, enjoyment and finances of cyclists and non-cyclists."

In May 2016 the Committee released an interim report on bicycle helmet laws (term of reference d). This is the Australian Government's response to the interim report.

RESPONSES TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1

4.15 The committee recommends that a consistent and comprehensive national data set be established. The data set should provide nationally consistent information on cycling- related injury trends as well as cycling participation rates. The committee recommends that the Department of Health in cooperation with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and state and territory counterparts develop the national data set for application across all states and territories.

The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle.

Although the Government supports the aim of developing more comprehensive data on cycling injury and cycling participation, it is not currently feasible to establish a national data set as described in Recommendation 1. This would require both on-road and off-road injury data, neither of which is currently available as a consistent national collection.

Work is underway through the National Road Safety Action Plan 2015-17 to examine and progress options to improve the measurement and reporting of non-fatal and disabling injury road crashes. A project being carried out through Austroads (the peak organisation of Australasian road transport and traffic agencies) entitled "A national approach to measuring non-fatal crash outcomes" is investigating data linkage of police-reported crash data and hospital admissions data at the national level, and is expected to run until late 2017. Further information about possible sources of road crash serious injury data and the development of a national injury monitoring system is available in Information Sheet 76, "Developing national road safety indicators for injury," published by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) in September 2016.

It is known that a large proportion of cycling injuries are not reported to police, even when assistance is sought from a local doctor. The NSW government published a report in September 2015 to investigate linking data from police and hospital records of serious injuries called Serious Injuries in NSW: reporting methodology and results. This report found that 78% of serious injuries to cyclists on NSW roads who were admitted to hospital were not reported to the police. Un-matched cycling injuries are typically those which do not involve a collision with a vehicle. Given the data limitations, a significant investment would be required to establish and maintain a national data set for cycling-related injury trends to capture both on-road and off-road injuries. State and territory governments currently report cycling injuries which occur on public roads, however each jurisdiction defines injuries differently and this data cannot be aggregated. Efforts to develop a national measure of serious injuries from road crashes, through the Austroads project mentioned above, are currently a high priority for the Australian Government.

The Australian Government has recently announced funding for the Australian Trauma Registry, which will in due course provide a source of detailed information about very severely injured cyclists, both from on-road and off-road crashes.

Recommendation 2

4.17 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development in cooperation with the Department of Health conduct a national assessment of mandatory bicycle helmet laws once a national data set of sufficient quality has been established. The impact of the Northern Territory legislation should form an important part of the overall assessment. In addition to safety concerns, this assessment should consider the relationship between bicycle helmets and cycling participation rates, drawing on the experience of bike share schemes and other initiatives directed at improving cycling participation rates.

The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.

The Australian Government recognises that there is strong evidence that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing serious head and neck injuries to cyclists. Recently released research from the University of New South Wales further supports the efficacy of bicycle helmet use to mitigate serious head and neck injury in a crash or fall1. A review of 40 studies found that bicycle helmet use reduces the odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury. This research also confirmed that neck injury was rare and not attributed to wearing a bicycle helmet.

The continued application of mandatory bicycle helmet laws is a matter for the individual state and territory governments.

1Olivier, J. & Creighton, P. 2016, Bicycle injuries and helmet use: a systematic review and meta-analysis, International Journal of Epidemiology.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM

SENATOR DAVID LEYONHJELM – LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Recommendation 1

Cyclists aged 16 years and over should be exempted from the mandatory helmet road rule when riding in parks, on footpaths and shared/cycle paths and on roads with a speed limit of 50 km/hr or less.

The Australian Government does not support this recommendation, recognising that there is strong evidence that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing serious head and neck injuries to cyclists. The continued application of mandatory bicycle helmet laws and any exemptions is a matter for the individual state and territory governments.

The committee may be interested to note that the ACT Government's Road Safety Action Plan 2016-2020 includes an action to investigate and assess the risk of allowing cycling without helmets in parks, town centres and other low speed environments.

Recommendation 2

As part of this recommendation (and tied to the collection of a comprehensive data set), this should be accompanied by a 24 month evaluation process that includes baseline measurements and data collection so that a reliable assessment can be made which measures the effect and notes any benefits.

The continued application of mandatory bicycle helmet laws and any exemptions is a matter for the individual state and territory governments, as is the evaluation of any trials undertaken.

Recommendation 3

At the conclusion of this evaluation, and subject to its findings, I recommend also exempting cyclists under 16 years from an obligation to wear helmets, while making clear to parents that their responsibility to their children should include serious consideration of wearing one.

The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.

Australian Government response to the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into Scrutiny of Financial Advice report:

Scrutiny of Financial Advice Part 1 – Land banking: a ticking time bomb

Senate Economics References Committee

Scrutiny of Financial Advice Part 1 Report – Land banking: a ticking time bomb

Government Response

Recommendation 1 (paragraph 8.56-8.57)

The Committee recommends that the Government, in consultation with the states and territories, should strengthen the regulatory framework of the property investment industry to bring it into line with regulations applicable to the financial investment industry. Specific areas include:

•   making the regulation of property investment advice a Commonwealth responsibility (recognising that services provided by licensed real estate agents would remain under state and territory regulation);

•   inserting a definition of property investment advice into the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act; and

•   requiring that anyone providing property investment advice should hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (with appropriate exceptions).

In respect of the last recommendation, the committee suggests that the independent industry-established standards setting body for financial advisers could set the educational and training requirements for property investment advisers and the code of ethics to which they would subscribe.

– The reforms restrict the terms 'financial planner' and 'financial adviser' to persons authorised to provide personal advice on complex financial products under an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). The legislation will prevent property spruikers from holding themselves out to be financial planners or financial advisers.

– The ACCC can take action under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) against conduct in trade or commerce that is misleading or deceptive, unconscionable, or can be viewed as harassment or coercion.

Recommendation Two (paragraph 8.77)

Having regard to recommendation one, the Committee recommends that Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand, in its review of the Australian Consumer Law, give serious consideration to:

•   the options for reform proposed by the national review project into property spruikers;

•   whether investment property advice rightly belongs under the same regime as financial products and financial advice and, if not, how consumer safeguards available to investors in financial products can be replicated for investors in property;

•   measures needed to prevent property investment spruikers with demonstrably compromised integrity from continuing to operate in the business;

•   introducing a licensing regime for those providing advice on property investment which would include minimum qualifications and a code of conduct to which they would subscribe; and

•   increasing the penalties for misleading and deceptive conduct, including the introduction of civil penalties and criminal sanctions.

The Government notes this recommendation.

Recommendation Three (paragraph 8.63)

The Committee recommends that Consumer Affairs Ministers consider the terms of the reference for the review of the Australian Consumer Law with a view to inserting a specific reference to advice on property investment in term of reference no. 1.

Recommendation Four (paragraph 6.26)

The Committee recommends that state and territory governments consider requiring that moneys paid to purchase an option in a land banking scheme be held in trust consistent with the requirements for off-the-plan agreements.

Recommendation Five (paragraph 8.104)

The Committee recommends that ASIC, the ACCC and state and territory regulators have a stronger focus on providing up-to-date and accessible information alerting consumers to risks arising from the activities of spruikers as part of their efforts to improve the financial literacy of Australians and to encourage the early reporting of concerns about property investment seminars and schemes.

Recommendation Six (paragraph 8.90)

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government give due consideration to:

•   the characteristics of investment seminars, wealth education programs and similar product sales environments when consulting with stakeholders and conducting consumer testing to rename general advice;

•   whether the general advice warning needs to be strengthened to ensure consumers are aware that general advice is not required to meet the higher regulatory obligations applying to personal advice; and

•   whether the obligations on those providing general advice should be strengthened in regard to misleading information.

Recommendation Seven (paragraph 5.22)

The Committee recommends that the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner and Legal Services Board (and, where appropriate, other state and territory legal professional bodies) investigate thoroughly the conduct of lawyers involved in providing advice to investors in the land banking schemes considered in this report, as well as those lawyers who provided advice, and controlled trust accounts, for the operators of the schemes.

Recommendation Eight (paragraph 5.23)

The Committee recommends that Consumer Affairs Victoria investigate whether Market First and/or other parties, including lawyers, breached the requirements in the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) in regards to off-the-plan contracts of sale for the Foscari and Veneziane developments

Australian Government response to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee report: The shortage of engineering and related employment skills

August 2017

Response

The Australian Government acknowledges the 2012 report: The shortage of engineering and related employment skills, which was relevant at that time, given the rapid growth of infrastructure activity within the resources sector and the consequent demand for engineering based labour into this sector.

A number of recommendations in the 2012 report are in accordance with current Government policy, including supporting education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics and improving trade commencements and completions and these are referenced in Attachment A. The Government will also continue to seek to support all Australian students to have the opportunity to gain the skills for high-wage, high-productivity jobs of the future as well as continue to link Australia to the best talent from overseas to meet our on-going skill needs. This support includes having higher education and vocational education and training (VET) sectors that deliver quality education and skilling, and improve outcomes for students, employers and the economy.

It is worth noting that some recommendations in this report have been overtaken by changed conditions across the Australian economy and other developments. For example, a combination of structural adjustment in manufacturing and a transitioning mining sector, from an investment phase to a production phase, has resulted in the softening of labour demand for some engineering professions and trades.1 These changed labour market arrangements confirm that shortages in engineering are cyclical and not chronic.

Background

On 7 November 2011, the Senate referred issues relating to the shortage of engineering and related employment skills for inquiry. The relevant committee was asked to examine the nexus between the demand for infrastructure delivery and the shortage of appropriate engineering and related employment skills in Australia, with particular reference to:

ATTACHMENT A

1 Occupational skill shortages information – Engineering Professions Australia 2015-16) and Engineering Trades Australia (December quarter 2015) refer, www.employment.gov.au/occupational-skill-shortages-information

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

I seek leave to return to consideration of the President's report to the Senate on the status of government responses to parliamentary committee reports as at 30 June 2017.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I think we should all take note of the extensive list of responses that have not been received. I particularly want to draw attention to the committee reports from the Community Affairs References Committee. There is, in fact, a whole page of reports that the government has not responded to. It says 'interim' in the list of responses received. Interim means, 'We're going to get back to you, folks', but they have not responded to the specific recommendations—for example, in The effectiveness of special arrangements for the supply of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicines to remote area Aboriginal Health Services. That report was done in 2011! It's a very, very important issue. There are a number of other reports that have not been responded to: The factors affecting the supply of health services and medical professionals in rural areas. This is a very important report. I should note that I chaired all of these inquiries, and I can tell this chamber that the senators put an awful lot of work into these reports. But, more importantly, communities have put an awful lot of work into these inquiries. Individuals, community-based organisations, businesses, professional bodies have put an awful lot of work into these inquiries, and what does the government do? It has not bothered to respond to a large number of them.

One of the reports that I am frequently contacted about is Prevalence of different types of speech, language and communication disorders and speech pathology services in Australia. That was an extremely important report that made a large number of recommendations. Community organisations put a great deal of work into that. There are extremely important issues at stake here, but the government has not responded to this report which was tabled on 2 September 2014. Government, where is the response? Why haven't you responded? This is appalling. One report has been responded to—Adequacy of existing residential care arrangements available for young people with severe physical, mental or intellectual disabilities in Australiabut why haven't the other reports, which are equally important, not been responded to?

We have not got a response on, for example, Indefinite detention of people with cognitive and psychiatric impairment in Australia, which was tabled last year—more than six months ago, so the government's had ample time to look at this. Again, these are extremely important issues.

Out of home care , about children taken into care—the government has not responded to that. Again, it is outrageous that the government has not responded, particularly when you look at the ever-escalating number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children who are going into care. When that inquiry first started, 51 per cent of those in out-of-home care in WA were Aboriginal children. Do you know how many it is now? Fifty-four per cent. It's gone up another three per cent. Aboriginal children only make up around six per cent of the child population in Western Australia. It's gone up in the NT as well. The government has a royal commission going on at the moment in the Northern Territory, around youth detention. Maybe it should be looking at the underlying causes that these children end up in detention. We know that children going into out-of-home care have worse outcomes. There are definitely links to the justice system, yet the government has not responded to that report.

The government should get its act together and respond to these community affairs reports and all the other reports that the committees spend so much time on and that the community commits so much time to, over and over again. I'm not surprised that Speech Pathology Australia is extremely disappointed—I can tell you that—that the government has not responded to that report. Likewise, other organisations are deeply offended that the government has not responded to other reports that they have put so much effort into. Please get your act together and respond to these reports and don't show such disrespect to the committees that do the work and, more importantly, to the Australians who've put so much effort into these inquiries and do it expecting the government to take it on board and to take some action.

Question agreed to.