Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present 17 government responses to committee reports as set out in the document available in the chamber and listed on the Dynamic Red. I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Integrity of Australia's border arrangements—Government response, dated April 2024.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that Australian Government law enforcement agencies develop, in consultation with ACLEI, a coordinated serious crime and corruption strategy with a particular focus on strategies and actions to enhance integrity and to identify, prevent and prosecute corruption at Australia's borders.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs portfolio agencies and Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment work together to ensure a consistent approach to the development and implementation of integrity and anti-corruption frameworks. In addition, that these agencies work together to develop agreed site-specific integrity and anti-corruption plans and procedures that take into account site-specific corruption vulnerabilities whilst aligning with the broader integrity and anti-corruption framework.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the overall administration of the ASIC and MSIC schemes to consider either a single issuing authority or a significantly reduced number of issuing bodies.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4: The committee recommends a central register of ASICs and MSICs be established that is updated on a regular or real-time basis to reflect, at a minimum:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 5: The committee recommends that the Australian Government assess the capability of law enforcement agencies to appropriately and proportionately exercise powers to undertake their roles in preventing, disrupting and investigating criminal activity at Australia's ports and related facilities in the supply chain and consider how best to mitigate existing barriers to effective law enforcement at ports and along the supply chain.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 6: The committee recommends that the Australian Government ensures there is a program of ongoing research on corruption activities at Australia's borders and within agencies operating at the border. This will assist to identify corruption risks and better inform anti-corruption measures that can be updated to meet the constantly evolving risk environment.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Economics References Committee—Australia's sovereign naval shipbuilding capability—Future Submarine acquisition: A shambles—We don't think, we know—Second interim report—Government response

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Government reviews the size of the ADF in order to ensure a more sustainable and credible conventional force is available for future military operations, particularly sustained operations.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate

Recommendation 2

That the Department of Defence provide in a manner suitable for publication:

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3

With the aim of increasing its staff's awareness of their democratic responsibilities:

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Economics References Committee—Australia's sovereign naval shipbuilding capability—Future Submarine program: Ringing of bells, wringing of hands—Interim report—Government response

Recommendation 1

The Commonwealth Government and the Department of Defence report to the Parliament on what discussions were or are being undertaken with Saab/Kockums, or any other alternative submarine builder, about the provision of a Collins-class derivative boat, or any other design, as part of a 'Plan B' should the Naval Group agreement be cancelled.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2

That the Department of Defence provide the Senate Economics References Committee, on a confidential basis, an un-redacted version of the renegotiated Strategic Partnership Agreement with Naval Group for scrutiny.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3

With the aim of increasing its staff's awareness of their democratic responsibilities:

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4

That the Department of Defence provides to the committee in un-redacted form all the documents requested under the Senate's Order of Production of Documents (General Business Motion, No. 786).

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Economics References Committee—Future of Australia's naval shipbuilding industry—Final report—Government response

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth and state governments work together to develop a national shipbuilding plan, incorporating the existing naval shipbuilding plan. A national shipbuilding plan should include the following:

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that in the absence of a national shipbuilding plan in the short term, reporting against the government's current naval shipbuilding plan and its four key enablers and three major continuous build programs be provided to the Commonwealth Parliament every six months.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the government prioritise finalising the future location of Collins Class sustainment activities and confirm plans for the future of the ASC and its employees.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that the funding announced in MYEFO expenditure of $29.4 million over three years from 2017-18 for ASC job retention scholarships be immediately released to the ASC to prevent further job losses from the strategically vital naval shipbuilding industry.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that the Naval Shipbuilding College establish structured consultations mechanisms with Industry Reference Committees associated with Naval Shipbuilding Occupations.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 6

The committee recommends that the Australian Industry Skills Committee task the existing Industry Reference Committees, responsible for the development of training products associated with naval shipbuilding occupations, with establishing Technical Advisory Groups to ensure that skills gaps identified through their own industry consultations or by Naval Shipbuilding Colleges are integrated into existing training package development and maintenance work.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 7

The committee recommends that the government provide clear definitions about what constitutes Australian involvement, content, and participation, and how this will be achieved in each project outlined in the government's naval shipbuilding plan. These definitions and requirements for Australian industry involvement are to be stipulated in each contract.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 8

The committee recommends that Australian Industry Capability plans for new Defence naval projects are subject to examination by the Senate—conducted in a manner similar to international treaties. The committee further recommends that finalised Australian Industry Capability plans are subject to six monthly reviews against progress by the Senate.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Expanding the membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership—Report—Government response

Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to embrace an ambitious free trade agenda by working with other CPTPP members to expand the CPTPP to include new members that:

a) support an open, transparent and stable trading environment in the Indo- Pacific;

b) demonstrate an ability and willingness to meet the agreement's high standards including a commitment to deliver against its rules and norms; and

c) offer export potential through enhanced market access.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works with other CPTPP members to leverage the process that applied to the United Kingdom as the first aspiring economy to formally request accession as a template for future aspirant economies while also learning lessons from the United Kingdom experience including the:

a) benefits that accrue from negotiating a bilateral FTA with the United Kingdom while concurrently encouraging and facilitating its accession to the CPTPP;

b) importance of government-to-government engagement during the CPTPP accession process, including at the ministerial level;

c) value of clear guidance on the CPTPP accession process such as deal stages and related expectations.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with other CPTPP members to encourage and facilitate the accession of the United Kingdom to the CPTPP.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with other CPTPP members to encourage China to re-establish full trading relations including ending its coercive trade measures and reengaging in ministerial dialogue, and to demonstrate an ability and willingness to commit to the CPTPP's high standards, prior to supporting the commencement of an accession process.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 5:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with other CPTPP members to encourage and facilitate the accession of Taiwan to the CPTPP and to consider negotiating a bilateral Taiwan-Australia FTA concurrently, noting the benefit of a similar approach taken with the United Kingdom.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 6:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with other CPTPP members to support South Korea in submitting a formal request to accede to the CPTPP, and to provide encouragement and facilitation of its accession upon a formal request being submitted.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 7:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with other CPTPP members to encourage the United States to renew its interest in the CPTPP.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 8:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with other CPTPP members to encourage informal discussions with Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and other economies which have expressed an interest in acceding to the CPTPP.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—One region, one family, one future: Deepening relations with the Pacific nations through trade—Report—Government response

Response to the recommendations

Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government prioritises its support for the Pacific region to recover from COVID-19 by:

a) increasing its development assistance contributions to countries in the region to help them mitigate economic and health crises resulting from the pandemic (refer paragraphs 6.3, 6.5, 6.8—6.11, 6.17 & 6.22);

b) providing vaccine coverage for countries in the region including health workforce training and education campaigns (refer paragraphs 6.9—6.10 & 6.25)

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that, given the evidence received, the Australian Government prioritises the activation of greater trade and investment with countries of the Pacific region by:

a) considering measures and reforms to the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER Plus) to address any gaps in key areas such as in rules of origin, customs, biosecurity measures, standards, trade in services and investment during the Agreement's implementation by Australia, New Zealand and Pacific island countries (refer paragraphs 4.5, 4.8, 4.10, 4.37, 4.40, 4.82, 4.91);

b) providing training, seed funding, and targeted support to allow Pacific islanders, including Pacific islander small business owners and Pacific exporters, to gain access to Australian markets and also meet the standards required (refer paragraphs 3.102—3.104, 4.88—4.89, 7.45 & 8.4);

c) supporting further research and evaluation of Australia-Pacific island trade and investment (refer paragraphs 3.49, 5.127 & 5.129);

d) focusing its Aid for Trade program in the Pacific on building human resource, educational and institutional capacity in the Pacific island countries to reform national economic and trade policies, improve trade facilitation processes and build trade-enhancing institutions (refer paragraphs 3.90, 3.91, 3.93 & 3.95—3.104);

e) supporting with technical assistance and expertise the establishment of National Standards Bodies in Pacific island countries with the ambition of developing a regional Pacific standard (refer paragraphs 7.26—7.38);

f) supporting the Pacific Quality Infrastructure Initiative and other bilateral, regional and multilateral projects involving Australia in the Pacific region aimed at delivering quality infrastructure (refer paragraph 7.39);

g) coordinating with interested super funds to support and promote pilot investor tours of Pacific island countries (refer paragraph 6.112);

h) assisting interested governments of Pacific island countries to join Australia's kava commercial importation pilot and for the pilot to consider the feasibility of classifying kava as a food under a joint food standard of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (refer paragraphs 8.13-8.33).

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government improves travel and mobility between Australia and the countries of the Pacific region by:

a) establishing a Pacific travel bubble between Australia and New Zealand that includes interested countries of the Pacific region, subject to health advice and the implementation of COVID-safe travel and quarantine arrangements (refer paragraphs 3.30—3.46);

b) investigating the potential for improving infrastructure and its maintenance to encourage and enable increased air and sea links between Australia and the Pacific (refer paragraphs 3.142, 3.145—3.146, 3.148, 3.157—3.158 & 3.160);

c) introducing a Pacific Business Travel Card, similar to the visa APEC Business Travel Card (refer paragraphs 6.44, 6.48—6.49 & 6.51—6.52);

d) reviewing existing labour mobility arrangements, including the Seasonal Worker Programme and the Pacific Labour Scheme, for workers from countries of the Pacific region with consideration for:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works towards deepening people-to-people ties between Australia and countries of the Pacific region through:

a) sport

b) Churches

c) media—by supporting the provision of more Pacific-related Australian media content on issues such as seasonal work opportunities or aid projects to Pacific nations while also assisting with the expansion and the quality of Pacific-focused business media services to the Pacific (refer paragraphs 6.113—6.115, 6.121—6.123, 6.127—6.130 & 8.35);

d) education—by offering a capped number of Commonwealth Supported Places, or equivalent, to prospective students from countries of the Pacific region, to attend Australian secondary schools, technical and further education institutes, and universities (refer paragraphs 2.92—2.93, 2.101, 3.88 & 7.59—7.61).

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government recognise the role played by Australian states and territories, in particular by Queensland, in Australia's relationship with countries of the Pacific by:

a) analysing the recommendations in this report within a Queensland context;

b) undertaking a feasibility study on expanding the services of a Pacificfocused office for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Queensland, resourced by senior departmental staff (refer paragraphs 3.151—3.152 & 3.162); and

c) engaging with the Queensland State Government and relevant local government authorities in Queensland on opportunities to work collaboratively on the recommendations in this report and other initiatives to further strengthen Australia's relationship with countries of the Pacific region.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Report—Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 [Provisions]—Government response

Introduction

On 10 May 2023, the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 (the Bill) was introduced into the House of Representatives by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, the Hon Richard Maries MP.

On 11 May 2023, the Senate referred the provisions of the Bill to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee (the Committee) for inquiry and report by 9 June 2023. The Committee published 117 submissions, including those made by the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and ARPANSA.

The Bill was passed by Parliament on 22 June 2023 and received Royal Assent on 3 July 2023 as the

Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Act 2023.

Australian Government Response to the Report

The Australian Government thanks the Committee for its work. The Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation that the Bill be passed without delay, which subsequently occurred on 22 June 2023.

Response to additional comments by Coalition Senators

The Government welcomes the bipartisan support from Coalition Senators in relation to the passage of the Bill, but does not support lifting the moratorium on civil nuclear power. The removal of prohibitions on the use of nuclear energy is not necessary to support Australia's acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines.

Response to the Dissenting Report by the Australian Greens

The Government does not agree with the Australian Greens' Dissenting Report and notes that accepting high level radioactive waste from other countries is not under consideration as part of Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program. No decision has been made regarding Australia joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) but the Government shares the Treaty's ambition of a world without nuclear weapons.

Contributing Departments and Agencies to the Government Response

Australian Submarine Agency Department of Defence

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

_____

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities—First interim report—Government response

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that Defence engage with the Office of the Industry Advocate to investigate opportunities for events or workshops which also include regional areas and local businesses.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that Defence review its formal mechanisms for communication and coordination in the Upper Spencer Gulf region to ensure:

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that Defence hold a post exercise debrief with the local community representatives on a trial basis and then, in consultation, evaluate whether it would be useful for stakeholders on an ongoing basis.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that Defence review Defgram 218/2017 to clarify or issue supplementary guidance to staff that local purchases outside the Standing Offer Panel is also encouraged as required.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that Defence make information available to local communities about

Defence expenditure in the area. In consultation, with the local community, Defence should consider how best to present and disseminate this information.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities—Second interim report—Government response, dated May 2024.

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that, in consultation with the local councils, Defence review its mechanisms for communication and coordination in the Fitzroy and Townsville regions to ensure the most effective flow of information including plans which may generate potential business opportunities.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that Defence make information available to local communities about Defence expenditure in the area.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that Defence commission an independent economic impact assessment of the loss of rateable land which would result from the proposed expansions in these areas.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that Defence review its formal mechanisms for communication and coordination in the areas around the Shoalwater Bay Training Area to ensure that:

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate

_____

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities—Third interim report—Government response, dated May 2024.

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that Defence make information available to local communities about Defence expenditure in the area.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that Defence review the evidence from the Ngaigu-Mulu Aboriginal Corporation at the Katherine public hearing and investigate the issues raised.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate

_____

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities—Fourth interim report—Government response, dated May 2024.

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that Defence review the accessibility of military museums located within Defence bases and investigate options to improve access and increase visitor numbers.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that Defence investigate the feasibility of introducing tailored security arrangements to facilitate streamlined access to the Puckapunyal Military Area in limited circumstances.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that Defence, in consultation with local councils, reviews its existing regional communication mechanisms with a view to establish a regular forum to facilitate discussion about Defence activities and potential business opportunities in the region.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4 4.19

The committee recommends that Defence consider requiring, through an additional provision in Base Services contracts, Tier 1 contractors to use a payment system similar to the system currently used by Defence.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that Defence make information available to local communities about Defence expenditure in the respective area.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate

_____

Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Annual report of committee activities 2021-22—Government response

Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends the Department of Home Affairs notify the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in writing when terrorist group re-listings are not being sought or are being de-listed. This is to occur as soon as practicable after the event. Written notification is to be followed up by, if requested, an oral briefing to the Committee on the basis for the revocation or non-renewal of terrorist group listings

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate

Recommendation 2:

The Committee recommends that any Bill referrals are accompanied by a submission from the department(s) responsible for the Bill.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate

Recommendation 3:

The Committee recommends that the appropriate Minister notify the Committee of any amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 affecting the role or functions of the Committee, not contained in a Bill reviewed by the Committee or in a government response to a Committee report.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate

Recommendation 4:

The Committee recommends the Australian Government refer Section 29 and Schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review and report at the commencement of the 47th Parliament.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate

Recommendation 5:

The Committee recommends the Australian Government investigate, in consultation with the Presiding Officers of the Parliament, the Director-General of Security and the Director-General National Intelligence, the feasibility of additional classified meeting spaces within Parliament House for use by parliamentary committees, including the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate

_____

National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—Inquiry into availability and access to enabling communications infrastructure in Australia's external territories—Interim report—Government response

Overview

The interim report on the Availability and Access to Enabling Communications Infrastructure in Australia's External Territories was tabled by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories (the Committee) on 28 February 2022. The Government's responses to the Report's recommendations is below.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government's response to the interim report on the Availability and Access to Enabling Communications Infrastructure in Australia's External Territories is set out in detail below.

Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends that early in the 47th Parliament, a new Inquiry be referred to this Committee with terms of reference that are similar or comparable to the 'Inquiry into the availability and access to enabling communications infrastructure in Australia's external territories'

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

National Capital and External Territories—Inquiry into economic, social and environmental sustainability in the Indian Ocean Territories—Interim report—Government response

Overview

The interim report into the Economic, Social and Environmental Sustainability in the Indian Ocean Territories (IOT) was tabled by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and the External Territories (the Committee) on 28 February 2022. The Government's responses to the Report's recommendations is below.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government's response to the interim report on the inquiry into economic, social and environmental sustainability in the Indian Ocean Territories is set out below.

Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends that early in 47th Parliament, a new Inquiry be referred to this Committee with terms of reference that are comparable or similar to the 'Inquiry economic, social and environmental sustainability in the Indian Ocean Territories'.

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—Final report—NDIS workforce—Government response

Recommendations made by the Committee

1. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government facilitate the collection of data to support better understanding about new working models being employed in the National Disability Insurance Scheme, including online and platform-based services.

Noted

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

2. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that workers in the National Disability Insurance Scheme and their representatives, as well as other stakeholders, are consulted in all regular pricing review processes and processes to review the Cost Model for Disability Support Workers.

Noted

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

3. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, through co-design with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and organisations, develop and report on specific outcomes for initiatives in the NDIS National Workforce Plan 2021-2025 to support the growth and development of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NDIS workforce.

Noted

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

4. The Committee recommends the Australian Government implement a targeted strategy to improve employment opportunities for people with disability within the NDIS workforce specifically, that is co-designed by people with disability and peak bodies.

Noted

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

5. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government address the funding and resource implications of any new training and upskilling initiatives, in relation to NDIS service providers and individual disability support workers within the sector.

Noted

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

6. The Committee recommends the Australian Government develop and implement a robust strategy to increase and improve opportunities for student placements in the NDIS workforce. The strategy should include strong partnerships with NDIS service providers, universities, TAFEs and other training institutions, and be co-designed by people with disability and peak bodies.

Noted

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

7. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with NDIS participants and their advocates, the disability and allied health sectors, and NDIS workers and their representatives, develop and publish clear and measurable outcomes for each of the initiatives in the NDIS National Workforce Plan 2021-2025.

Noted

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

8. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develop and publish a comprehensive consultation strategy for the implementation of measures under the NDIS National Workforce Plan 2021-2025.

Noted

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—496th report—Inquiry into the Defence major projects report 2020-21 and 2021-22 and procurement of Hunter class frigates: Interim report on the 2020-21 and 2021-22 Defence major projects report—Government response

General Comments

Defence acknowledges the observations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit ('the Committee') in Report 496 that specifically addresses the 2020-21 and 2021-22 Major Projects Reports (MPR). Defence agrees with all three recommendations the Committee has made, and has made improvements in policies and practice since the development of the last MPR.

Recommendation No: 1

The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence updates internal governance to require decisions for projects to enter the Projects of Interest or Projects of Concern list be actioned in a timely manner, taking no more than three months between decision and implementation.

Summary of response: Agreed

Supporting rationale:

Defence acknowledges the Committee's concern that projects must be elevated to Projects of Interest or Concern in a timely manner, as a result of the issues identified in the 2021-22 Major Projects Report regarding the Civil Military Air Traffic Management System project.

Defence has implemented reform measures announced on 10 October 2022 by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence Industry to strengthen and revitalise the Projects of Concern process. A revised policy on the performance reporting and the Projects and Products of Interest and Concern regime was introduced in February 2023.

The policy provides specific guidance on timeframes to action the advice and remediation planning for Project of Interest or Concern. Advice to the Group Head must be provided within one month of the need for consideration of elevation being identified. In the case of Projects of Interest, the Group Head is the decision-maker. Should the Group Head determine that the project should be elevated to a Project of Concern that advice is to be provided to the Minister for Defence Industry within two weeks. A remediation plan is to be in place within three months of the decision.

Recommendation No: 2

The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence provide a detailed update on the implementation of and compliance with internal policies for contingency funding and Lessons Learned for Major Projects.

Summary of response: Agreed

Supporting rationale:

Defence has been supporting its major project teams with additional guidance and assistance to improve their compliance with policies and processes associated with project management. Defence is seeing positive signs that the contingency funding and lessons learned policies are being adhered to across the MPR projects, and continues to assess compliance across all major projects.

Contingency funding

In accordance with the existing Defence contingency management policy, if a major project is unable to manage a contingency event within its approved budget allocation, it must enter a formal process to access contingency provisions. The Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group Risk Management Manual specifies the requirement for a major project to maintain a contingency budget log, an artefact required for the contingency application process.

The requirement for submission of the contingency log, to be assessed as part of the contingency application process, ensures that major projects maintain a record of management decisions relating to the emergence and realisation of contingent events. This enables the project to be able to access contingency.

An assessment of the projects in scope of the 2022-23 Major Project Report identified that all five projects that had used contingency had linked this to a risk in their respective logs, and followed the Defence policy. Defence continues to assess compliance for all major projects.

Lessons learned

Since the release of the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) revised Lessons Program Policy in 2022 (with which all MPR projects must comply), Defence has continued to improve the way that lessons are captured and shared for major projects.

Observations, insights and lessons are captured within the Defence Lessons Repository. Under the CASG Lessons Program, major projects must develop a Lessons Collection and Management Plan, which draws on existing information in the Defence Lessons Repository relevant for their project planning and management. The Plan also requires the project to record their own observations, insights and lessons. This process supports the planning of future projects.

In addition to policy, there are a range of other ways that lessons information is shared and utilised. Lessons panels are held on specific projects, where the project team and their leaders provide insights and advice to an audience of senior leaders and project teams across CASG. Case studies are also developed to share knowledge more broadly. Additionally, systemic themes from the Defence Lessons Repository are analysed and fed back into policy and training.

Defence is undertaking specific action to record the lessons from previous exited Major Projects in the Defence Lessons Repository. This includes the issues identified regarding compliance with contingency management and lessons learned policies.

An assessment of the projects in scope of the 2022-23 Major Projects Report identified that all of the projects have related lessons information available within the Defence Lessons Repository. Defence has reinforced with its project teams the requirement for capturing lessons in the repository and is monitoring this and providing assistance to project teams to ensure this occurs.

Recommendation No: 3

The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence provide an update on the requirements and consideration process to close recommendations from the Australian National Audit Office and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, including an explanation as to why Recommendation 4 of Report 489: Defence Major Projects Report 2019-20 has been closed without meeting its intended purpose.

Summary of Response: Agreed

Supporting Rationale:

With regard to Recommendation 4 of Report 489: Defence Major Projects Report 2019-20, Defence understood the Committee was seeking Defence to better define the declaration of operational capability milestones. Defence determined that, going forward, there would be only two authorised terms describing a delta or deviation from achievement of project milestones—'caveats' and 'deficiencies'. These were updated in Defence policy in December 2022.

Defence acknowledges that "the definition of the two terms does not meet the intention of the Committee's recommendation to clarify any term relating to a deviation from project milestones being achieved". Recommendation 4 of Report 489 was closed in accordance with Defence's recommendation closure policy and process, with Defence advising the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit of audit closure of Recommendation 4 of Report 489, via a tabling document on 1 June 2023.

Defence's intention in responding to Recommendation 4 was to identify to the Committee that there would only be two terms going forward. Defence intended to define any remaining legacy references in the 2022-23 Major Projects Report via its glossary and accepts that the response to the recommendation would have benefited from that clarification. There are three projects that use the legacy term 'exception' from 2021 in relation to achievement of project milestones in the 2022-23 Major Project Report. Definitions of 'exception', 'issue' and 'risk' were included in the 2022-23 Major Projects Report glossary.

All projects will adhere to the endorsed terms of 'caveats' and 'deficiencies' going forward.

With regard to the process to close recommendations from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, Defence's Chief Audit Executive provides independent and objective assessment of evidence to show the requirements of the recommendation have been met to close recommendations. Once the Chief Audit Executive approves closure of the Parliamentary recommendation, Defence will provide a response back to the relevant committee.

The status of recommendations, including when they are considered implemented, is also reported regularly to the independent Defence Audit and Risk Committee. The ANAO are provided these updates on the status and closure of audit recommendations, as they are permanently invited guests to the Defence Audit and Risk Committee meetings.

In 2021, the ANAO conducted the Implementation of ANAO and Parliamentary Committee Recommendations Audit (Audit 34 of 2020-21) to examine whether the Department of Defence implemented a selection of agreed parliamentary committee and ANAO performance audit recommendations. One of the key criteria was to assess if Defence had appropriate governance arrangements in place to respond to, monitor and implement recommendations. The ANAO audit acknowledged Defence had appropriate governance arrangements for responding to, monitoring and implementing ANAO recommendations and partially appropriate governance arrangements for parliamentary recommendations.

In response, Defence reviewed its existing recommendations processes and revised them to establish a clear line of sight of the process, roles and responsibilities for responding to and implementing recommendations for internal and ANAO audits and parliamentary committee recommendations.

The ANAO does not require Government departments to provide advice on the status or closure of ANAO performance audit recommendations. Defence prepare a closure pack for the ANAO to assess the remediation of financial statement audit findings. In addition, as detailed above, the ANAO are permanently invited guests of the Defence Audit and Risk Committee meetings where the status and closure of ANAO and Parliamentary recommendations are discussed.

_____

Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—202nd report—Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement—Government response

Introduction

The Australian Government thanks the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties

(the Committee) for its expedited consideration of the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement (ECTA).

The Government provides the following response to the Committee's recommendations.

Response to the recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government strongly pursues greater market access for the Australian wine industry in future Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement negotiations.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

Seeking additional market access for wine is a priority in negotiations for an Australia- India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends the Australian Government implements the recommendations of Report 193: Strengthening the Trade Agreement and Treaty Making Process in Australia, particularly in relation to greater consultation and transparency, and in providing independent modelling and analysis of trade agreements.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation and proposes to formally respond in the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth inquiry: Inquiry into the Australian Government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements.

The Government is improving its consultation and transparency in relation to the free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations process and endeavours to undertake economic modelling and/or analysis of trade agreements where appropriate.

The Government requested the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth inquire into the Government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements.

Identifying methods to strengthen stakeholder consolation and improve transparency was a key reason for this request.

The Government has also established a Trade 2040 Taskforce, which held its inaugural meeting on 2 November 2023 and brings together government, industry, unions and community representatives and serves as a consultative mechanism to further the Government's trade policy agenda. The Taskforce will help improve the consultative processes with stakeholders across the forward trade and investment agenda, including with business, unions and community representatives.

In addition, National Cabinet decided on 30 September 2022 to include a Ministerial Council on Trade and Investment in the Federal Relations Architecture. It held its second meeting on 20 October 2023 and is intended to increase coordination on international and national priorities related to trade and investment across Commonwealth, State and Territory jurisdictions, including in relation to trade agreements. More information can be found at: Communique—Second Meeting of the Ministerial Council on Trade and Investment | Minister for Trade and Tourism (trademinister.gov.au) DFAT sources information on opportunities and potential impacts of FTAs through extensive consultations and stakeholder engagement. DFAT undertakes appropriate economic modelling, both commissioned and in house, of individual FTAs on a case-by-case basis. Independent analysis on new and existing FTAs is also provided by stakeholders in submissions addressing impacts on the Australian economy as a whole or on certain sectors. These processes commence before the development of a mandate and continue throughout the negotiations and after entry into force.

Recommendation 3

The Committee supports the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.

Response:

The Government has implemented this recommendation.

The Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement entered into force on 29 December 2022.