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

.by leave—On behalf of the Chair of the Economics References Committee, I move:

That the time for the final presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on the provisions of the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood and Cyclone Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2010 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (temporary Flood and Cyclone reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011, and related matters be presented by 22 September 2011.

Question agreed to.

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

Order! It being 6:50 pm the Senate will proceed to the consideration of government documents.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I am referring to the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands on the exchange of information with respect to taxes done at Majuro on 12 May 2010. The operative words here are 'exchange of information with respect to taxes', because, of course, taxes are what this government knows a lot about but it does not know so much about 'exchange of information'. We were promised a new era of openness and transparency in government. We were promised that this Prime Minister would let the sun shine in. But we have multibillion-dollar new taxes imposed by this government to fund multibillion-dollar new levels of expenditure. This is a government which spends too much and borrows too much, which leaves this government in debt and deficit. We are now looking at $107 billion worth of government—

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

I rise on a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President, that goes to relevance. I know that we usually range fairly widely when we are taking note of government documents, including treaties, but I do think that Senator Cormann is possibly stretching the normal practice of Senate procedure.

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

Thank you, Senator McLucas. I shall pay careful attention to Senator Cormann's remarks and draw his attention to the standing orders.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Acting Deputy President. I can well understand why Senator McLucas is very touchy when I talk about the lack of information that is being exchanged by this government, even though they committed to the good people of the government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands that they would exchange information.

Government senators interjecting—

What I am wondering is whether the people in the Republic of the Marshall Islands have had any more luck than the senators in this chamber, because, of course, the senators in this chamber should not be treated any worse than the good people in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. It is for that reason I am complaining that we are being treated way worse than the citizens of the Republic of the Marshall Islands—and, of course, we should not be treated by this government like a bunch of mushrooms.

I will get to the pertinent facts straight­away, Madam Acting Deputy President. It is an issue that arose earlier today. More than 150 days ago I asked this government for some information about how they were spending taxpayers' money here in Australia. Specifically I asked:

How much of the stimulus package remains to be spent for each of the following financial years: (a) 2010-11; (b) 2011-12; and (c) 2012-13.

It is true that the government has taken so long to answer this question and to exchange this information with the Senate—and I am sure they would have sent the information to the Marshall Islanders but not to us. So here we are and 2010-11 is now finished. The financial year is now over. So that information should be very readily available but it has not been provided. The 2011-12 one has since been provided to a Senate estimates committee—I grant them that—but the information for 2012-13 has not been. This question has been on the Notice Paper for more than 150 days and to this day the government has refused to provide the information to the Senate. I hope that the good people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands have more luck in exchanging information about taxation with this government than we have had in trying to scrutinise their expenditure, because this government's economic team is led by a Treasurer who is incompetent, who has been fiscally reckless, who has presided over four successive deficits in a row and who comes in with one new multibillion-dollar tax after another.

After the Henry tax review observed that we have way too many taxes, with 125 taxes around Australia, and after the Henry tax review observed that 10 of those taxes collect 90 per cent of the revenue, with the remaining 115 taxes collecting 10 per cent of the revenue, and after the Henry tax review observed that we should have fewer taxes than the 125 taxes, this Labor government has added another five taxes to the mix. We are now going to be talking about the student tax, the flood tax, the carbon tax, the mining tax and the LPG tax. One tax after the other comes out from this government, yet this government is not prepared to be accountable to the Australian parliament when it comes to explaining how much of taxpayers' dollars they are spending and when. Very specifically, I think it is an absolute disgrace that, after the more than 150 days that question No. 437 has been on the Notice Paper, this incompetent Treasurer refuses to be accountable to this parliament, refuses to provide any information about how much of the stimulus package remains unspent for 2012-13. I hope that somebody in the press gallery will try their luck and get this information from the Treasurer. Certainly we here in the parliament are unable to do so as, sadly, we are unable to do way too often, because this is a secretive government which always has something to cover up, which always has another example of incompetence or wasteful spending to cover up. No doubt that is why the Treasurer is not sharing this information, not exchanging this information, with the Australian parliament.

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

I am drawn to enter this debate having been encouraged by the very fine words of my colleague Senator Cormann but also having been encouraged by the interjections from senators opposite. I have actually been to both the Marshall Islands and Mauritius. I have to say they are both great countries. The Marshall Islands has a very big shipping register but it is a developing country. It does not have the techniques, the public service and the technology that the Australian government has. It seems incredible to me that some information, which must be clearly at the Treasurer's fingertips, cannot be provided in answer to questions on notice from Senator Cormann after more than 150 days. What if it took 150 days to supply the sort of tax information that is required by these two treaties to the governments of the Marshall Islands and Mauritius? Surely it would be available in Australia, with all of its public servants, with all of its technology and with all of its information systems. There are thousands and thousands of public servants in this town who are there to record this sort of information. I am sure that if the Treasurer had one ounce of intelligence and ability—and I will give him credit for having one ounce, perhaps not much more—that information would be available. If the government of Mauritius or the government of the Marshall Islands were asking for it, it would be readily available; but when the opposition asks for it, suddenly it becomes all too hard. For a government that pays lip service to accountability and openness, this is an absolute disgrace. But what would you expect from a government led by a leader who solemnly promised not to introduce a carbon tax in her government? She did that one year ago today. When you cannot believe the Leader of the Labor Party, who is currently our Prime Minister, on that basic promise, how can you believe her on her promise of openness and accountability, which is required in relation to the explanation of taxes?

If these developing countries, the Marshall Islands and Mauritius, with their limited resources can exchange their tax information with Australia's tax information, why on earth can't the Treasurer of our nation supply what must be very basic information that he would have at his fingertips? One can only assume that, yet again, this government is demonstrating not only its incompetence but its dishonesty. It is demonstrating its inability not only to properly manage the country but also to comply with any of the promises it made in relation to (a) 'no carbon taxes in the government I lead' and (b) the openness and accountability that was supposed to be part of the new paradigm, which is this awful, dysfunctional government that we have 'not running' Australia at the present time.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

In so doing, could I just refer the Senate to sections A and B, which perhaps should be called through at a later date. I did want to note the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Report for 2009-10, as I am Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. We visited Customs operations in both Darwin and Sydney and I have to say by way of congratulations to the Customs and Border Protection people that they are doing a magnificent job in those two ports of entry, both seaports and airports. I am sure they are doing the same in other ports as well. In fact, having recently come through the Brisbane border protection area, I can confirm that they do equally as well in Brisbane. I am sure they do a magnificent job everywhere.

One of the very difficult things for the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service is that, beyond their normal airport and seaport operations, they are tasked with the job of intercepting all the boat people coming into our country illegally. I might take this opportunity to note that, since the announcement of what is called the 'Malaysian solution'—the solution for processing people who have come to our country by illegal means—boats have continued to arrive. You will recall, Madam Acting President, that I mentioned in a previous speech how you really cannot believe the current Leader of the Labor Party, who happens to be for the moment the Prime Minister of this country, on carbon taxes. You will remember that just one year ago today she made the solemn promise that there would be no carbon tax 'under a government I lead'. We know that she has, with impunity, broken that promise. But you might also recall that she made a promise that she would never send illegal immigrants for processing in a country that was not a signatory to the United Nations refugee convention. Yet it is clearly recorded that Malaysia is not a signatory to that convention. How can the Leader of the Labor Party, who is currently the Prime Minister, on one hand before an election say that she will not send immigrants arriving by illegal means to countries outside of Australia for processing if those countries are not signatories to the United Nations convention on refugees and, with impunity, simply break that promise after the election?

This Labor Party-Greens government is developing a real history of making solemn promises before an election and simply discarding them after the election. In relation to border protection, in fact in relation to any other promise that the current Prime Minister might ever make in relation to anything, it makes one wonder how we can possibly believe her. In relation to the carbon tax she is saying that we are going to compensate everybody. How different is that from the promise in which she said, 'I won't introduce a carbon tax'? It has transpired in the border protection—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order and I want to go to the question of relevance. I note that in Senator Macdonald's previous contribution he did try to join in the countries with whom a treaty had been made, but I think that in this contribution he is actually straying a long way from the report that he is taking note of.

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

Thank you, Senator McLucas. I remind Senator Macdonald that he has taken to his feet to speak to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Report 2009-10 and that he should speak to that according to the standing orders.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I have been speaking about the border protection and customs service and what a great job they do but I am saying that, unfortunately, more and more their resources are being diverted to collecting people arriving illegally in our country, using their patrol boats and all their resources to become policemen, almost, in stopping illegal boat people from coming in. I am simply demonstrating that, in relation to border protection that the Customs and Border Protection Service is required to enforce or anything else, you simply cannot believe our Prime Minister, the Leader of the Labor Party. In that area you cannot believe her on anything she might say about anything. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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

Order! There being no further consideration of government documents, I propose the question:

  That the Senate do now adjourn.

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

I am sorry, Madam Acting Deputy President, are you not dealing with documents listed at (a), (b) and (d)?

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

I beg your pardon. I should have clarified that those documents are listed for discussion on Thursday.

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

Tonight I want to talk to the Senate in relation to the green skills centre in Newnham, Launceston, in my home state. The Tasmanian Skills Institute has been in operation since 1 January 2009 as a training provider, emerging from TAFE Tasmania as part of the Tasmanian government's reform of the post-secondary education sector.

The Skills Institute's Green Skills Centre of Excellence was officially opened at the Alanvale training facility in Launceston on 22 July this year, although it began operating two months prior to the official opening and many of the employer clients have appreciated the potential benefits they can bring to their business by training their employees through this facility.

The Skills Institute is an experienced registered training organisation with around 400 employees operating from eight major training hubs in trade and technical training across Tasmania. The Skills Institute is dedicated to workforce development in partnership with employers. The client group of the Skills Institute is employers and their employees. This client group has differing needs and expectations from the traditional TAFE student group, who attend a campus of their own volition.

The federal government provided $6.4 million under the Training Infrastructure Investment for Tomorrow element of the Teaching and Learning Capital Fund for Vocational Education and Training to build the centre, and what a magnificent facility it is. The state government, through the Skills Institute, contributed $750,000 towards the cost of the facility, bringing the total investment to $7.15 million.

The Green Skills Centre of Excellence project provides a state-of-the-art, Green Star rated training facility for a combination of construction, allied trades, joinery and furnishings trades. The centre has been built to the latest technology standards and is in line with the National VET Sector Sustainability Policy and Action Plan 2009-2012. The project introduces and implements green technology not only in the infrastructure and fabric of the new building but also in the training programs delivered, which in turn influence attitudes and work practices in industry.

A highlight is the purchase of $650,000 worth of state-of-the-art woodworking machines, including a five-axis computer controlled work centre believed to be the first of its kind in the state. This means furniture trades apprentices now have access to machinery that is at the cutting edge of technology. Prior to this new facility being built, training facilities operated from a post World War II textile factory on the fringe of the Launceston CBD, with its most recent modifications carried out 30 years ago.

I would now like to turn to Scottsdale, which is in the north-eastern region of Tasmania and the centre of the Dorset region, which is approximately an hour north-east of Launceston. The region has been affected over the last eight years or so by downturns in the food industries and it has also been affected by the downturn in the forestry industry in Tasmania. The recently announced forestry agreement between the federal and state governments will assist in dealing with the effects of change within that industry. It would be very easy to believe that this community is depressed, downhearted and waiting for handouts. However, in my recent visits to the community, this is not what I found; in fact quite the reverse.

I visited the Dorset men's shed. As we all know, unlike women, most men are reluctant to talk about their emotions and that means that they usually do not ask for help. Probably because of this many men tend to be less healthy than women, they sometimes drink more, they take more risks and they suffer more from isolation, loneliness and depression. Relationship breakdowns, retrenchment or early retirement, loss of children following divorce, physical or mental illness are just some of the problems that men find hard to deal with on their own.

A good men's shed must have a good coordinator and the Dorset men's shed has one of those individuals. He has both the technical and the social skills to help develop a safe and happy environment, where men are welcome to work on a project of their choice in their own time, and where the only thing they must do is observe safe working practices.

The Dorset men's shed is one of more than 30 men's sheds in Tasmania—and there are more than 500 across Australia. The numbers attending and the range of activities are impressive. Women are also attending some of the projects, and I witnessed some women at the leadlighting course and making things for their own homes. Local charities are also benefiting from the timber and metal items produced by the men's shed. The quality and range of articles produced for the annual challenge event is astonishing. This year's challenge was no exception, with many outstanding pieces of woodwork—dining settings, chessboards and lazy Susans, just to name a few.

When I go to the north-east, I like to visit as many places as I can, including the high schools. But I also visited Aminya, which is a small nursing home on the edge of Scottsdale that is managed by Presbyterian Care. Like other organisations in Scottsdale, the facility continues to be improved. The recent internal modifications are excellent and it is an outstanding facility. They have plans to extend and are one of the big employers in that region, which is very important.

More importantly, a community relies a great deal on their local council. The Dorset Council have been dealing with the challenges that the forestry industry have been going through. When I met with the general manager and the mayor, I was impressed by how positive they were about the future of their municipality. They talked about the benefits of the National Broadband Network. They talked about how businesses have moved from interstate and are being managed out of Scottsdale because of the NBN. They talked about their ongoing plans for the future development of tourism in the area. They talked about health services. Whether you talk about health, whether you talk about tourism or whether you talk about education, they will all benefit from the rollout of the National Broadband Network.

The Dorset Trade Training Centre, which is part of the Tasmanian Polytechnic, is another wonderful initiative. The sorts of subjects covered at the Polytechnic include primary industry and infra­structure, tourism and hospitality, health and wellbeing, build­ing and construction, childcare and com­munity services, and business. The Dorset Trade Training Centre was only officially opened late last year, but it already has a fantastic network because of the people working there. They are locals who know the networks, have a great working relationship with the men's shed and are working with the local high school. When I spoke to the young people who were doing courses such as carpentry or working on car engines, I found they were all enthusiastic. These young people see this as a great opportunity to help them on their way to a successful future.

Whether at the aged-care facility, the high school, the trade training centre, the men's shed or a meeting with the mayor and the general manager of the Dorset Council, their overall attitude was not about wanting a handout; it was about a helping hand. They have plans for their future. It is a lovely environment and it was refreshing to visit them all. They typify the Tasmanian spirit and can-do attitude. They reinforced once again what a huge benefit the National Broadband Network has been to the area, and having visited other areas in Tasmania I know how important it is for Tasmania generally.

I do not have much time tonight, but I do want to touch on one other area that I have been involved in. One of the great delights during this winter recess has been to attend a number of Building the Education Revolu­tion openings. At the Invermay Primary School, a school which was built in 1889, you could see how it has been transformed and the benefits that has brought to the Invermay community. At St Finbar's Catholic primary school you could see how innovative they have been with their redevelopment. At the East Launceston Primary School, a school that has been established for many, many decades, you could see how they have really benefited from this investment into the future of our young people.

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

At the beginning of this month, I was fortunate enough to be in Sri Lanka in Colombo for the 27th Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development. This particular meeting was focused on the growth of the world population, as we move to the figure of seven billion bodies on our planet. The meeting coincided with the release of the latest 2010 revision of world population prospects, the official United Nations population projections prepared by the population division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, which drew the attention of the world to the growth of our population and future expectations. The projections pointed out clearly that we will this year have a world population of seven billion and they traced the history, showing how long it has taken to reach these levels and showing the acceleration which has occurred during the past centuries.

World population is projected to cross the seven billion mark very soon, the eight billion mark in 2028 and the nine billion mark in 2054. It is expected to stabilise at just over 10 billion after 2200. It has taken just 12 years for the world to add the most recent billion to our population. That is the shortest period in time in world history for a billion people to be added to the population. And the stats—and I am not normally a statistical person—give us some sense of the growth rate.

World population did not reach one billion until 1804. It took 123 years to reach two billion in 1927, 33 years to reach three billion in 1960, 14 years to reach four billion in 1974 and 13 years to reach five billion in 1987. You can see where the projections are going. This is something which we believe the world should think about and acknowledge and we believe we need to look at how we move forward.

The 27th conference was opened by Mr Fukuda, the previous Prime Minister of Japan, who has been a strong supporter of the issues around world population. Mr Fukuda talked about the fact that activity by international parliamentarians in population and development started in Colombo in 1979 with the first international conference of parliamentarians on population and develop­ment. We have a record of that meeting, which shows that the countries across our area, particularly those of the Asia-Pacific and including Australia, gathered at there. The successful outcome of the Colombo conference led to the Asian Conference of Parliamentarians on Population and Development, which took place in Beijing in 1981. It was there that the following really important principle was adopted:

The population issue cannot be forced. The issue cannot be resolved unless members of parliament who represent our people play our roles.

Mr Fukuda then took us to a wider discussion about what we needed to do to take action. He said:

First, we should have a clear vision as to how we can achieve sustainable development—

and that the important aspect is—

... to come to grips with the issues facing us from a long-term and panoramic perspective. We must understand that the issue of population is inseparable from such ... issues as food security, the environment, energy, and water.

That set out the program of the people we met at the conference, the key papers that were presented. They looked at those issues about which we talk so often in this place: sustainability, food security and effective aid development processes where we, as donor countries, can work effectively with people with strong aid and development programs.

It was a wonderful moment when we could talk about the Australian aid program, the recent review and the way that the review of our aid program is looking towards a future where the issues of sustainability, environment and population are indeed key to our future aid development, which is of course linked to the Millennium Develop­ment Goals. The second aim of the conference was the need:

... to reaffirm that without resolving population issues there cannot be sustainable development. To achieve that result, we must bring to mind our Cairo Agreement and achieve universal access to reproductive health services. This is the first step for poor people to realise a decent life as human beings—

and that is in clear compliance with the Millennium Development Goals which the United Nations has confirmed.

The third aspect was to:

... find ways to harmonise economic growth with sustainable development.

That looks at working with countries. We have been most privileged today in this place to have an opportunity to meet the leaders of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to look at how we can achieve economic development in our region that must be linked to sustainable development and engagement with population.

Achieving the process will not be easy, but members of parliament have a responsibility. Since the Cairo declaration we have agreed that together we can work to make a change and to ensure that the issues of population are clearly on the agenda. Indeed, when we have these meetings there is sometimes a view that it is just a matter of sharing knowledge and having a talk. That is just not true. There has always been a statement of commitment and action coming out of the meetings. The 27th meeting came up with a public declaration, which is available on the internet, to which every parliamentarian from the 15 countries represented made a commitment to adhere. We talked about the issues of the 30th year of activity around the AFPPD and how we now have a body of knowledge which we can look back and learn from and in which we can trace the progress.

Also as parliamentarians we committed to a range of actions. The focus of this meeting is that we are elected representatives without any particular party allegiance who come together to look at the issues around population leading to a range of actions. We strongly advocate among our fellow parlia­mentarians, the media and other stakeholders because our deep concern is that inter­national interest in the impact and consequences of the ever-growing world population has been waning. There is a concern among parliamentary groups that, while there is acknowledgement that issues around sustainable development and economic development are clearly on the agenda, there has been, we believe, some waning of the acknowledgement of the role of population growth in that process. It is our job, as people who feel this is important, to keep this on the agenda and to keep talking about it. In fact, one of the key actions is that we expect parliamentarians who have the great fortune and honour to attend these meetings of the UN and the Asian Forum on Population and Development to go back to our parliaments and continue to talk about these issues, keep them on the agenda. That is why I have made a range of speeches on these issues. I hope to continue to do so.

We also as parliamentarians request international aid agencies to provide parliamentarians with evidence based tools to advocate to the public, both in developed and developing countries, about the impact of growing world population on the earth's future. And we expect that Australia, as a donor nation which has a strong and proud history of the work that we do, will acknowledge the issues of population and work with the countries with which we are engaged on intercountry aid development—that we look at the issues of population in discussions with governments about the development of multilateral trade agreements and in working with NGOs.

We confirmed the importance of advocacy activities in maintaining and augmenting aid budgets in developed countries and requested donor organisations to implement them effectively. Indeed, what we have been doing in the past weeks is looking at the way aid is developed, how we actually work with countries to ensure that we are not imposing ideas from outside, no matter how good they may seem to us, but working with the countries themselves to see that there is a joint commitment and understanding of the issues. When you sit around the table at these international meetings and hear stories from parliamentarians from other countries, you know that they understand the threat to their nations. They understand sustainability. They want to work with us so that we can have an effective, developed process between us.

We must work with international agencies to share with parliamentarians concrete examples of good practice, cost-effectiveness and socioeconomic impact on the community so that we can cooperate in advocacy activities. Most importantly, we reaffirmed the spirit of the 1979 Colombo Declaration on Population and Development and the important role that parliamentarians have to play in population and development issues.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to talk about progress on major infrastructure projects in my duty electorate of Swan. I have been inspired to take this action following a similar discussion which occurred in the other place recently. I have been advised the member for Swan claimed credit for ensuring the federal government delivered on a promise to upgrade Great Eastern Highway. I was somewhat taken aback by this suggestion. My surprise sprang from my intimate knowledge of the progress of this project. It has a history that goes back some time—in fact, a little while longer than the current member's interest.

Great Eastern Highway, for those not familiar with this part of the world, is a road which starts near the entrance to Perth city and the famous Causeway Bridge. It meanders through the eastern suburbs of Rivervale, Ascot, Belmont, Cloverdale and Redcliffe to Perth airport. Past this point it continues through Guildford and Midland to suburbs and, later, towns in the hills district. As part of the AusLink national network, it will take you to the eastern states of Australia. It is an important road, as it links the airport to the city, and for that reason it is a busy road.

The proposal was to upgrade a stretch of the highway from Kooyong Road to the airport. This section has only four lanes but currently services 55,000 vehicles per day. Traffic volume is forecast to increase to 66,500 vehicles per day by 2016 and is projected to reach 79,000 vehicles per day by 2031. My former colleague Kim Wilkie lobbied the Howard government for many years to fund upgrades to this part of the highway; however, it must be said that there was not much interest. On 18 November 2006 he received a response from Howard government minister Mr Jim Lloyd, which said in part:

… this section of highway is not part of the AusLink National Network, and the Western Australian Government is responsible for its funding …

He went on to say:

… I can see no particular virtue in the inclusion of the GEH in the Perth Urban Corridor Strategy …

In stark contrast, the Rudd government in 2007 committed $180 million to upgrade that part of the highway. Funding for the planning phase was committed by the Carpenter government in 2008. Since that time, the project has been expanded and the estimated cost is now some $350 million. As a result, the current government has increased the Commonwealth's contribution to $280 million. Work has begun and is scheduled for completion in late 2013. Contrary to the views of others, there was never any danger that we would fail to honour our commitment. We accepted that this major works project was necessary to increase the capacity, the safety and the efficiency of one of the city's principal transport routes.

The federal government has also made a commitment to the Gateway WA project. This project involves upgrades to the road network around Perth airport. In essence, the project includes a freeway-to-freeway interchange at the intersection of Leach Highway and Tonkin Highway. It will also increase freeway capacity to six lanes. The estimated cost of this project is $600 million. The federal government's contribution will be $480 million. It is a project that has been identified by the Western Australian government as a national infrastructure priority. I agree.

As all would be aware, Western Australia is experiencing a massive expansion in the resources industry. That means more fly-in fly-out workers using what is fast becoming the busiest airport in Australia. The proposed consolidation of the domestic and international airport terminals by 2017-18 is expected to double passenger and freight movements by 2030. The Gateway project is critical to ensuring that we can meet this demand. If the last resources boom showed us anything, it is that funding of key infrastructure projects cannot be put off if we are to maximise its benefits.

Finally I would like to talk about the rollout of the National Broadband Network, the NBN. Over the years I have received a number of complaints from local residents about broadband black spots. The complaints have come from residents in parts of Kewdale, Cloverdale and areas around Ferndale and Langford. All of these suburbs are within five to 10 kilometres of the central business district. They are not regional areas; they are not rural areas. So why are they unable to access broadband services?

The answer is blindingly obvious. Telstra, in being allowed to be run as a vertically integrated monopoly, had no incentive to maintain or develop new infrastructure. The NBN will fix that by separating the wholesale from the retail. It will create a level playing field between service providers. Retail prices charged to consumers will be determined by the retail service providers. That, of course, will stimulate competition. The fibre network will mean more choice, greater competition and better value services. Along with faster and cheaper broadband for families and local businesses, it will also provide equity in access. It is true to say that the NBN will change the way we live.

I am very pleased that last year the government announced that Victoria Park would be the second phase rollout of the NBN. Initially, 3,000 homes and businesses will be connected to the network. From there, the network will spread through Telstra's copper network of ducts, pits and exchanges. The agreement with Telstra will enable NBN Co. to deliver next generation super broadband services with less disruption to residents and reduced rollout costs.

These projects are part of the Gillard government's commitment to infrastructure projects in Western Australia. In all, Western Australia will receive record funding of $920 million for transport infrastructure alone. As well as upgrades to the Great Eastern Highway and the Gateway WA project, that funding will enable upgrades to road and rail into Port Esperance, upgrades to the Great Northern Highway at Port Hedland, an access road for Bunbury Port and the Northbridge rail link project through Perth's CBD.

In the Swan electorate, the federal government's commitment to major infrastructure projects is welcomed by residents, local businesses, transport companies and large-scale commercial enterprises, local and state government representatives and, I think it would be fair to say, the member for Swan.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to speak for 20 minutes.

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

Leave is granted.

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

There are things about the world that will always remain constant. One is that sea levels and tides will always go up and down. The political situation in Australia now and the argument for a carbon tax are like the tides, they ebb and flow, and opinions are rising and falling. The opinions of Australians on a carbon tax have fallen significantly, as only 36 per cent of people actually want it. The government has done everything but tell Australians not to buy a house at the beach because it will soon be under water. Mr Acting Deputy President, I know that you have a seaside property and I hope you do not feel that you have to sell it, because my speech will give you some encouragement to hold that property.

The Gillard government argues that climate change is affecting rising sea levels. But the need for a carbon tax to offset these effects is losing depth as evidence to the contrary mounts and the facts on sea levels are favouring history over the Labor government's alarmist future. According to the National Tidal Centre of the Bureau of Meteorology, the average trend calculated from 39 tide stations was a rise of 0.9 millimetres a year over the last century. These figures now show a much more realistic average rise of sea levels of 1.4 millimetres a year. I tried that out and was told, 'If you really want to be accurate, go and get some satellite data.' So I did.

Satellite data also shows sea levels globally have risen by 3.2 millimetres a year. I was informed that over the 20th century sea levels had risen by about 1.8 millimetres a year for an overall sea rise level of about 20 centimetres during that period. These figures are accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the government backed report on climate change, The critical decade, released last month, and they agree with my research. Both The critical decade report and the Bureau of Meteorology agree that sea levels have risen by 3.2 millimetres a year—so we have some common ground there—and would rise to about 0.32 metres by 2100. The report goes on to state on page 25 in tiny letters that projections of 1.5 or two metres seem high, but why did it then state on page 23, in extra large headlines and large font, that sea levels could rise by 0.50 to nearly two metres in the next hundred years. To say sea levels could rise by two metres in a hundred years when they have been rising by 3.2 millimetres a year over the last 20 years seems unrealistic. Yes, they could rise. You could be hit by a satellite—anything could happen. But it is not realistic.

According to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Combet, by 2100 sea levels will have risen by 1.1 metres. He has based most of his recent scaremongering on a report that was released in June. The report, Climate change risks to coastal buildings and infrastructure, was released a week later than The critical decade. It identifies significant risks to commercial and light industrial infrastructure and road and rail systems in Australia's coastal areas based on a sea level rise of 1.1 metres, representing a high-end scenario for 2100. If we are to believe the two government reports, it seems that sea levels have risen by two metres and have dropped by one metre. It is the Archimedes-in-a-bathtub principle—sea levels have changed in the space of a week. There were two reports: one said two metres; the other said 1.1 metres. How are we to believe these things if the government cannot even get it right within a period of two weeks and comes out with two differing reports varying by up to a metre? The two reports were brought out in the space of a week and yet predict two different things. How can this be? Either sea levels will rise by two metres or by 1.1 metre—it cannot be both. The exaggerations do not stop there. We can look at the findings of scientists that Labor holds up as gatekeepers of the truth on climate change, like Tim Flannery. He said:

Anyone with a coastal view from their bedroom window, or their kitchen window, or wherever, is likely to lose their house as a result of that change, so anywhere, any coastal cities, coastal areas, are in grave danger.

But the next year he bought a house just four or five metres from the edge of the tidal waters around the Hawkesbury estuary. He now contradicts that earlier scare without apologising for it. He told the Weekend Australian that while waterfront property generally was at risk, his little bit of paradise was secure for his lifetime:

There is no chance of it being inundated, short of a collapse of the Greenland Ice Shelf.

Flannery has also admitted that no matter what action we take on climate change there will not be anything that will have a substantial effect on global warming for at least 1,000 years. I think he did mention 100 years, but 1,000 years was mentioned there too. Despite Flannery's misrepresentation and misuse of the facts, other non-government aligned scientists have conducted research of the highest calibre and have deemed the reality of the situation to be different and not so dire.

A former environmental scientist for the Bureau of Meteorology, William Kininmonth, has written a paper entitled, 'A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming' that demonstrates exactly why Minister Combet's and Mr Flannery's predictions are wrong. Kininmonth 's paper shows that Minister Combet is confusing the projections of rudimentary computer models with science. The rudimentary computer models to date have shown no ability to predict temperature and sea level variations on monthly, seasonal, annual or decadal timescales.

Despite the contrary claims by the IPCC and its followers, there is no demonstrated skill in the computer models; they likely exaggerate the impact of atmospheric CO2 increases by more than a factor of three. The empirical evidence of science is that the climate system varies on a range of timescales for reasons that are poorly understood. The interannual variability associated with El Nino events has a great impact on Australia's climate, ocean surface temperatures and sea levels around Northern Australia. These events and their impacts cannot be predicted in advance. The decadal fluctuations in climate are observed but not understood. The centennial-scale fluctua­tions, with advancing and retreating mountain glaciers, have been identified from historical accounts and from archaeological and proxy records; the recent emergence from the little ice age and the current relative warmth are part of this pattern. The evidence of science is that the 20th century rate of warming and sea level rise was not unusual and there is no uncontroversial observational evidence indicating that the rates of warming or sea level rises have accelerated recently with increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

In the face of sound evidence, the projections of rudimentary computer models are a poor basis for government policy. And yet Minister Combet insists that coastal assets at risk from the combined impact of inundation and erosion include between 5,800 and 8,600 commercial buildings, between 3,700 and 6,200 light industrial buildings and between 27,000 and 35,000 kilometres of roads and rail. But as Mr Kininmonth asserts, these stats are based on computer generated figures. The Gillard government wants to use facts that we know cannot be predicted in advance and to disregard historical evidence that suggests all is not what it seems. Not only that—it continues to deny the existence of further evidence that proves its stance on sea levels to be wrong.

For example, even if we are to believe Minister Combet's claims based on his report, new findings separate from Mr Kininmonth 's suggest that sea levels could even be decelerating. This analysis was undertaken by New South Wales principal coastal specialist Phil Watson and calls into question one of the key criteria for large-scale inundation around the Australian coast by 2100—the assumption of an accelerating rise in sea levels because of climate change. Based on tide gauge records, the analysis finds there was a consistent trend of weak deceleration from 1940 to 2000. According to Mr Watson this deceleration is continuing and the government's projections are way off. Mr Watson's finding is supported by a similar analysis of long-term tide gauges in the US earlier this year. Both seem to raise questions about the CSIRO's sea-level predictions.

Mr Watson contends that in all cases it is clear that although the sea level is rising, it has been decelerating for at least the last half of the 20th century, and so the present trend would only produce a sea level rise of around 15 centimetres for the 21st century. Mr Watson has pointed out in his research that during the 20th century there was a measurable global average rise in the mean sea level of about 17 centimetres, plus or minus five centimetres. But scientific projections, led by the government funded Panel on Climate Change, have suggested climate change will deliver a much greater global tide rise in the mean sea level this century of 80 to 100 centimetres.

How can the predictions be so different? If one is wrong, which one is it? One would have to believe the historical evidence that suggests a less alarmist scenario rather than the government funded view which we know cannot be accurately predicted. Both Kininmonth and Watson seem to be saying the same thing: that the government's view on sea levels is not accurate or realistic. However, the Gillard government knows the alarmist view is the only one that will allow an argument in favour of a carbon tax to hold any water. So, the factual and historical science must be disregarded in favour of a much more biased and inaccurate form. It is like having a jigsaw puzzle and, instead of matching each piece with the correct holes, you try to make the holes match the pieces. That is what the government is doing.

The difference in the two models shows that there is a clear problem with the CSIRO findings. The difference is so vast—15 centimetres versus 1.1 metres—that there has to be some sort of miscalculation here. And yet the Labor government still bangs on about the science. As Julia Gillard says, 'It all comes back to the science, the science, the science'. She boasts about the informa­tion from the CSIRO being a direct reason for initiating her destructive policy. The truth is that empirical evidence shows that sea levels are in fact not rising at the rate the government says they are. If the government ignores this, it is being irrespon­sible and reckless and is imposing a major burden onto the economy of Australia. Rising sea levels are also a factor in people not being able to get bank loans for businesses and houses, as the bank deems certain areas too risky to be developed due to future sea level predictions. This is creating great uncertainty.

Science can be right or wrong and the CSIRO can be right or wrong. Two prominent scientists disagree with CSIRO. So what can we do as laypeople? All we can do is look at how the tide has increased over the last 100 years—20 centimetres—and how the tide has risen in the last 10 or 15 years, which is about 3.2 millimetres a year. Everyone agrees it is 3.2 millimetres a year. But then we see this massive jump, as predicted by the coastal report and the other report, and it is going to go from 3.2 millimetres a year—which no-one has an argument with—to two metres in one report and 1.1 metres in the other report. In the small print of these reports they say that might be an exaggeration, it might be too much, but in the big black headlines in one report it clearly states that the level of sea rise could approach two metres. There are disclaimers on it but that is the headline, in big, black, bold writing. That is what people look at.

We have to look at these things carefully. Yes, anything can happen in the world and I accept that. But how do you go from 3.2 millimetres a year to the worst-case scenario of a two-metre rise in sea levels? No-one is denying that that could happen, but it is very, very unlikely. Quite frankly, I think it has been a scare campaign by Mr Combet and the Gillard government.

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

Mr President, I seek leave to speak for longer than 10 minutes.

Leave granted.

I rise tonight to honour and farewell one of Australia's greatest heroes. Nancy Grace Augusta Wake, affectionately known as the 'White Mouse', passed away on Sunday 7 August only a few weeks short of her 99th birthday. This extraordinary and incomparable lady will always hold a very special place in the hearts of generations of Australians. Though never wearing this country's uniform, she became our greatest war hero when fighting the Nazis in Europe during World War II. Nancy Wake effectively eluded Hitler's Gestapo, saving up to 1,000 allied soldiers from certain death.

She was, as we know, a leading figure in the French Resistance movement and was directly involved in preparations for the D-Day landings in Normandy. So remarkable and effective were her achievements that by 1943 she was one of the Gestapo's most wanted persons, with a 5 million franc bounty on her head.

Notwithstanding her nickname, Nancy Wake was no mouse by nature. She did what had to be done—she put her own life in jeopardy time after time to save the lives of others. I am reminded of the story of her confronting and removing an SS sentry with her bare hands, squeezing the very life out of him to prevent him raising an alarm during a raid. This was an extraordinary woman with the courage of a lion; a woman of iron-willed determination, of breathtaking bravery and of infinite resourcefulness in the battle of the just.

For those generations born after World War II, we can only read about her life and wonder what the formative triggers were in turning a small Sydney schoolgirl into one of our war heroes. She certainly had to fight for her place in life from the very first breath she drew. As we have heard, she endured a difficult and challenging childhood, with her father leaving his wife and family of six children. Nancy was the youngest child and her father never returned to Sydney after he left for New Zealand. He sold up the family home while they still occupied it, and one can only imagine the emotional stress that this would have put on all the family—and particularly the youngest of the family, Nancy.

At the young age of 16 Nancy left the family home to forge her own way in life. She trained as a nurse to make ends meet, but it was a £200 windfall inheritance from a distant aunt which was to change her fortune. She first travelled to New York and then to London, where she talked her way into a job as a journalist by pretending to be fluent in Egyptian. At this interview, she clearly showed the first signs of her remarkable talent to get things done in her own inimitable way.

She did not stay in London. Instead she moved to Paris, where she also worked as a journalist and learned to speak French like a native. It was then that her life would change forever. She witnessed the rise of Adolf Hitler and saw firsthand the direct outcomes of his regime in Berlin and Vienna, where she observed how storm troopers publicly persecuted Jews. At that moment Nancy Wake swore to herself that one day she would do everything in her power to fight this inequitable regime. And she did when she finally had the chance, which made her one of those rare jewels who step up to their promises.

This turn of events must have surprised some friends, colleagues and acquaintances of Nancy. Before the war she was a sultry glamour girl who enjoyed the life of champagne and caviar with her first husband, the French playboy Henri Fiocca. But when the war broke out Nancy Wake did not hesitate a second and became a courier for the French Resistance and also joined the escape network of Captain Ian Garrow. When the network was betrayed she had to immediately flee the country. She had to leave her husband behind, who was later captured, tortured and executed by the Gestapo because he would not reveal the whereabouts of his wife. Nancy Wake, tragically, only learned of his fate after the war and blamed herself for his death.

She fled to Britain, where she signed up to the Special Operations Executive, who trained her in clandestine work. Back then it was one of the few military areas that men and women could equally participate in. She was taught survival skills in very difficult conditions. She learned to parachute, how to operate a radio and the use of weapons and explosives. She also learned how to kill silently before being parachuted back into France. Her SOE superiors remembered her as 'a very good and fast shot' and that she possessed excellent field craft. The White Mouse, they noted, 'put the men to shame by her cheerful spirit and strength of character'.

A French colleague once said about her: 'She is the most feminine woman I know until the fighting starts. Then she is like five men.' What a woman, and wouldn't we have all loved to have met her. Nancy Wake was without doubt a stunner and an Australian bombshell. Those who say that a beautiful girl can be very dangerous certainly were spot-on when referring to Nancy. She fought in the war with both male and female weapons. In her autobiography she recalled:

I'd see a German officer on the train or somewhere, sometimes dressed in civvies, but you could pick 'em. So, instead of raising suspicions I'd flirt with them, ask for a light and say my lighter was out of fuel.

She told how she would get beautifully dressed and hang around making dates with Germans to get information. She wrote:

A little powder and a little drink on the way, and I'd pass their posts and wink and say, 'Do you want to search me?'

Her looks clearly helped her in deceiving and tricking the soldiers. However, she was everything but idle when being parachuted into enemy territory, hiding in trenches, ducking machine gun fire, attacking German installations and local Gestapo headquarters, or famously cycling more than 500 kilometres in just 70 hours through several German checkpoints to recover important radio codes.

When the 1944 Normandy landings were approaching, Wake's resistance groups were diverting as many German troops as possible. This meant they were constantly on the move, sleeping rough and engaging the enemy in numerous fire fights. Wake led a force of more than 7,000, which was a highly motivated army that made life decidedly uncom­fortable for about 22,000 German storm troopers stationed in the area. She did an extraordinary job in leading those troops, especially when you consider that she lost only about 100 of the fighters, whilst more than 1,400 German soldiers were casualties.

In response to this she received numerous honours after the war such as the Legion d'Honneur as well as three Croix de Guerre and a French Resistance Medal, Britain's George Medal and the US Medal of Freedom. Nancy Wake was one of the highest decorated female servicewomen of the war. It fills me with great sadness that it took Australia almost six decades to honour her incredible achievements with her Companion of the Order of Australia. It is also a tragedy that she felt that she needed to leave Australia in 2001 following her disappointment at the lack of acknowledgement in this country.

Her medals are on display in the Second World War Gallery at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. What is not on display is the fight she took up after the war. Nancy Wake's determination was again demonstrated when she stood three times as a candidate for the Liberal Party in the 1949, 1951 and 1966 federal elections. In all those elections she was up for a fight and tried the impossible by going after one of the more senior guys in the Chifley government. Sadly she was unsuccessful, despite achieving remarkable record swings in all three campaigns.

In the 1949 campaign, for example, she ran against then Deputy Prime Minister, Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs, Dr Evatt. She went to the polls with the cry, 'I am the defender of freedom; Dr Evatt is the defender of communism.' This campaign resulted in a huge 13 per cent swing against Dr Evatt. However Labor retained the seat with 53.2 per cent on a two-party preferred basis. The second time Nancy Wake ran against Dr Evatt was in the 1951 election, when she came even closer in defeating the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition by reducing the margin to less than 250 votes. One can only imagine how this extraordinary woman must have felt after having been defeated in federal politics. The word 'surrender' surely did not exist in her vocabulary. One can only imagine how different things may have been if she had achieved electoral success. There is no question she was a trailblazer and would have served with the same level of passion, vigour, merit and integrity that guided her in her life. Her family and former friends have so much to be proud of and we will never forget the amazing contribution she has made to our lives.

In reflecting on Nancy Wake's courageous stance against anti-Semitism in the 1930s, I am reminded of recent disgraceful protests and boycotts in the heart of the central business district of Melbourne, scenes that I am sure would have captured the attention of Nancy some 80 years ago. The fact that anti-Semitic protests are happening in modern day Australia is an outrage that we should all roundly condemn. I speak of the recent violent protests orchestrated by the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement outside the Max Brenner chocolate shop in Melbourne, when some 19 demonstrators and three police were injured.

The BDS movement unashamedly targets companies that have any sort of connection with Israel. It is a disgraceful movement, one that was supported by the Marrickville Council and one that receives support from members of the Greens to this day, including Senator Lee Rhiannon. Their aim is to economically cripple the only democracy in the Middle East and the one country in which the region's Arabs are guaranteed safety. The serious consequences of this political movement cannot be overstated. Colleagues should pick up a book or view the old news footage of Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass, the night in which Jewish homes, shops, towns and villages in Germany were ransacked. To think that activists can justify what was essentially a picket of a legitimate business because it is an Israeli company is contemptible.

I wish to applaud the swift response from the Victorian Minister for Consumer Affairs, the Hon. Michael O'Brien, for taking immediate action and requesting an investiga­tion by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission into the legality of their actions. At the recent ugly Melbourne protest, BDS activists prevented potential customers from entering the store as part of an orchestrated campaign to impose a secondary boycott on the com­mercial activities of the business and demonstrate that they could boycott businesses that have any association with Israeli owners. The Maritime Union of Australia, Geelong Trades Hall Council, Green Left Weekly, Australians for Palestine and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign are all involved in or support the BDS campaign.

It is shocking that the purpose of this boycott was to cause substantial loss or damage to the Max Brenner business. Such conduct could potentially contravene section 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. I support Minister O'Brien's request to the ACCC Chairman, Rod Sims, to investigate these matters and consider seeking injunctive relief preventing further disruptions to the Max Brenner business.

Senate adjourned at 20:11

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice, on 28 September 2010:

(1) Between the release of the Government's green and white papers in 2008 on the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) for Australia, how many times did representatives of the Business Council of Australia or their members meet with:

(a) the Minister or anyone from the Minister's office; and

(b) departmental officials.

(2) Can copies be provided of correspondence, including emails, between the Minister or anyone in the Minister's office or departmental officials and the Business Council of Australia, its representatives or members relating to the development of the CPRS between the release of the green and white papers.

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:

The former Minister for Climate Change and Water, her Office and departmental officials met with the Business Council of Australia on a number of occasions between the release of the Green and White Papers as would be expected with a group representing major employers. Details are at Attachment A.

A substantial number of meetings were also held with other stakeholder groups during this period, including environmental groups, non-governmental organisations and other business groups.

Attachment B (available from the Senate Table Office) provides all substantial correspondence that occurred between the Business Council of Australia and the Department of Climate Change during this period. Other correspondence, which is not included, related to routine organisation of the meetings outlined in the Attachment(available from the Senate Table Office).

—————

Attachment A

Meetings between the Department of Climate Change and the Business Council of Australia – between the release of the Green Paper (16 July 2008) and the release of the White Paper (15 December 2008).

Attachment B and Attachment

Substantive correspondence between the Department of Climate Change and the Business Council of Australia – between the release of the Green Paper (16 July 2008) and the release of the White Paper (15 December 2008) is available from the Senate Table Office.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, upon notice, on 16 March 2011:

With reference to travel behaviour change programs:

How many positions are currently employed within the department specifically related to encouraging active transport, such as walking and cycling.

Can information be provided outlining the history of funding and the national approach to travel behaviour change programs.

Can an outline be provided of the current pool of funding and resources for a nationally coordinated approach to travel behaviour change programs, for example: (a) are there dedicated TravelSmart behaviour change programs within each state and territory; and (b) how does the Commonwealth invest in them.

To what extent is investment in active transport infrastructure, as a conditional requirement of all Commonwealth funded urban road and passenger transport projects, being promoted within the department, including, for example, shared/cycling paths, end of trip facilities and public transport nodes.

Transport behaviour change programs bring together a range of mutual benefits for our transport and health systems – with the new Australian National Preventive Health Agency established in 2010, has there been any effort to link these common agendas; if so, how; if not, why not.

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:

The Major Cities Unit is responsible for the Department's activities within cities such as active travel. As of 31 March 2011, it had an average staff level of 6.8.

The Department has not funded any specific travel behaviour change programs. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport launched the National Urban Policy on 18 May 2011. This included a $20 million Liveable Cities program, announced as part of the 2011-12 Budget, to support projects that improve the quality of life in our cities, including those that promote active travel through walking and cycling.

Various states and territories provide their own TravelSmart (or equivalent) behaviour change programs. The Australian Government does not currently provide funding to these programs. In 2008-09, the Government invested $40 million for the construction of cycling infrastructure under the National Bike Paths Projects component of the Jobs Fund.

There is currently no formal conditional requirement for active transport infrastructure in Commonwealth funded urban road and passenger transport projects.

There is no formal link between the Department and the Australian National Preventative Health Agency in relation to transport behaviour change programs.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, upon notice, on 22 March 2011:

With reference to the National Cycling Strategy 2011-2016 which notes that the $40 million Commonwealth stimulus funding for cycling infrastructure was significant, but states that more investment is required to 'facilitate real progress on the cycling agenda':

(1) Can an outline be provided detailing the funding and resources, including full-time equivalents, allocated within the department to active transport.

(2) Does the department consider funding for bicycle infrastructure to be a legitimate component of transport funding.

(3) Is there any indication that the department will move towards regular funding for bicycle infrastructure; if not, why not.

(4) How many kilometres of dedicated bicycle paths currently exist in Australia.

(5) What is the Federal Government doing to address safety for cyclists.

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 Major Cities Unit is responsible for the Department's activities within cities such as active transport. As of 31 March 2011, it had an average staff level of 6.8.

(2) and (3) The Australian Government fully supports bicycling as a component of Australia's transport task. In 2008-09, the Government invested $40 million for the construction of cycling infrastructure under the National Bike Paths Projects component of the Jobs Fund. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport launched the National Urban Policy on 18 May 2011. This included a $20 million Liveable Cities program, announced as part of the 2011-12 Budget, to support projects that improve the quality of life in our cities, including those that promote active travel through walking and cycling.

(4) The Department does not collect data on this matter.

(5) The National Cycling Strategy 2011-2016 is particularly focused on safety engineering solutions for cyclists. A draft National Road Safety Strategy for 2011-2020 is currently under development which will complement the National Cycling Strategy in terms of safety.

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

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

With reference to the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS):

(1)   What is the name of the unit within the department which advises the Treasurer on the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), and how many people is it comprised of.

(2)   Does the department still consider the NRAS program to be undersubscribed.

(3)   What industry consultation took place prior to the providing of advice to the Government that the target should be capped at 30 000.

(4)   How does the department work with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities on NRAS.

(5)   Given that, in November 2008, the Government introduced a transitional safety net to cover charities participating in NRAS, targeting charitable organisations that participate during the establishment phase of NRAS (dwellings built during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 financial years), thereby expiring at the end of that establishment phase:

  (a)   what is the current situation for charitable organisations participating in NRAS; and

  (b)   did the transitional safety net expire as noted; if so, are the affected charitable organisations currently participating in NRAS in danger of losing their charitable status and loss of valuable tax concessions.

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

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

Various units within the Treasury advise the Treasurer on different elements of the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS):

Based on current data (March 2011) NRAS will achieve the revised 35,000 incentives by 2013-2014 or 50,000 incentives over the extended time period.

Treasury has consulted industry in relation to various housing matters, which included NRAS.

Depending on the specific issue, the Treasury works with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) in a number of ways.

The November 2008 amendment to the Extension of Charitable Purposes Act 2004 related specifically to stage one (the establishment phase) of NRAS. However, as a result of the 2008 High Court decision (Federal Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Word Investments Limited [2008] HCA55), a charity is able to undertake unrelated commercial activity. The Government announced in the 2011-12 Budget that it will reform the tax concessions provided to NFP entities to ensure they are targeted only at those activities that directly further not-for-profit entities altruistic purposes. The Government has announced that the existing 50,000 NRAS allocations will be unaffected by the measure. Therefore, charitable organisations can fully participate in NRAS, without any further amendments to the law.

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

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

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

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

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

The 2011 Government report Strong Growth, Low Pollution: Modelling a Carbon Price provided details of modelling of the effect of a climate change mitigation policy on the economy including the effect on the percentage and amount of farming land in Australia that is used for food production. Full details are provided in section 4.4.4 of the report, which is available on the Treasury website: http://www.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling.

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

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

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

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

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

The 2011 Government report Strong Growth, Low Pollution: Modelling a Carbon Price provided details of modelling of the effect of a carbon price on the economy. One of the scenarios modelled in that report, labelled ‘Core policy’, was calibrated to achieve a carbon mitigation target of 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050. That report contained projections for employment shares with and without carbon pricing for a number of industries that produce food, as detailed below.

Table: Employment by Sector, 2050

Source: Treasury estimates from MMRF.

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

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

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

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

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

The 2011 Government report Strong Growth, Low Pollution: Modelling a Carbon Price provided details of modelling of the effect of a carbon price on the economy. One of the scenarios modelled in that report, the ‘core policy’ scenario was calibrated to achieve a carbon mitigation target of 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050. Given the policy parameters and macroeconomic assumptions considered, the modelling projected industry shares of economy-wide employment in 2050 with and without a carbon price in place. For mining industries, these industry shares are detailed below.

Table: Employment by Sector, 2050

Source: Treasury estimates from MMRF.

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

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

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

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

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

The 2011 Government report Strong Growth, Low Pollution: Modelling a Carbon Price provided details of modelling of the effect of a carbon price on the economy. One of the scenarios modelled in that report, labelled ‘core policy’, was calibrated to achieve a carbon mitigation target of 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050. Given the policy parameters and macroeconomic assumptions considered, the modelling projects gross output of the iron and steel industry will increase by 9 per cent by 2020 and by 79 per cent by 2050 with carbon pricing, while the iron and steel industry will account for 0.3 per cent of total employment in both 2020 and 2050.

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

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

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

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

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

The 2011 Government report Strong Growth, Low Pollution: Modelling a Carbon Price provides details of modelling of the effect of a carbon price on the economy.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

What is the current income distribution listed in $10 000 bands, from $0 to $1 million, of people receiving: (a) Family Tax Benefit Part A; and (b) Family Tax Benefit Part B.

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

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

The Department's 2009-10 Annual Report (Table J-5) details families receiving FTB-A and FTB-B by income distribution.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 2011:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

(1) As at 27 April 2011, the total number of staff employed in the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) and the portfolio agencies was 4,462.

(2) As at 27 April 2011, the number of staff in FaHCSIA who have disclosed their disability was 173. The total number of staff employed in the Department and the portfolio agencies, who have disclosed their disability was 192. Disclosure of their disability is optional for staff.

(3) FaHCSIA has in place a policy for the Recruitment and Retention of People with Disability, a Reasonable Adjustment Policy and the principles of reasonable adjustment are included in recruitment guidelines. FaHCSIA advertises job vacancies with Disability Works Australia, posts information about graduate opportunities on the Career Hub Central internet site, sends graduate opportunities to the Disability Access Coordinators across Australian Universities, and gives presentations to students with disability at universities in Canberra.

In addition to this, FaHCSIA has an 18 month Pilot Traineeship for People with Intellectual Disability, participates in the 'Stepping Into' internship program which provides work experience placements in FaHCSIA for university students with disability that are in their final year of an undergraduate degree and participates in the Paralympic Diversity Workplace Program.

FaHCSIA is also providing disability awareness training sessions to selection panels.

The programs and services available to staff with disability in the portfolio agencies vary depending on the size of the agency. Most of the smaller agencies adopt an individualised approach to supporting staff with disability, while other agencies stated that disability programs and services are captured in broader human resource (HR) management strategies. However, all portfolio agencies promote diversity in their recruitment processes and access professional services and support for staff with disability, such as workplace modification through the provision of reasonable adjustment services, or adopting a buddy system to support staff with disability. The following comments specifically relate to FaHCSIA, unless otherwise stated.

(4) In addition to the strategies mentioned previously in the answer to question (3), FaHCSIA has the strategies outlined below to assist with retention.

In 2009, a Mentoring Program was implemented to assist FaHCSIA employees with disability to achieve their professional aspirations and goals. As at 27 April 2011, FaHCSIA has approximately 50 employees trained with specific skills to mentor people with disability.

FaHCSIA conducts disability awareness training in partnership with the Australian Network on Disability, the ACT Deafness Resource Centre, beyondblue and Epilepsy ACT. Disability awareness training is also offered to employees, managers and individual work areas on request.

FaHCSIA has a range of other products and services in place to provide ongoing support to staff with disability. These include the provision of a Disability Access Coordinator, which is a designated position that provides an advocacy role for staff with disability in FaHCSIA and the use of centralised funds to cover reasonable adjustment costs.

FaHCSIA has established a senior disability champion role. This role is filled by a Deputy Secretary. The champion promotes disability awareness throughout the organisation and holds lunchbox sessions with employees with disability on a quarterly basis. The lunchbox sessions provide employees with disability an opportunity to consult with the champion on a range of issues and solutions.

The FaHCSIA Leadership disAbility Group (FLAG) is an employee stakeholder group with an interest in disability, with participation open to all staff in FaHCSIA. The vision of the group is to 'advance the status of employees with disability across the whole Department and build FaHCSIA's leadership in this area'.

A network for staff with a hearing impairment was established in 2008, where employees guide FaHCSIA on better practice around hearing services and procedures.

(5) All FaHCSIA employees, including staff with disability, can access career development planning within the context of FaHCSIA's Performance Management System. Career or development needs are identified for an individual employee's specific requirements. FaHCSIA's traineeship program for people with intellectual disability provided an opportunity for trainees to have on and off the job training and on successful completion they were permanently appointed to FaHCSIA.

(6) As at 27 April 2011, the total number of staff employed in the Department was 3454 and the percentage of staff in FaHCSIA who have identified as having a disability was 5.01 per cent (173), by comparison to the Australian Public Service (APS) average of 3.1 per cent from the State of the Service Report 2009-2010.

FaHCSIA and the portfolio agencies do not have specific targets for recruitment and retention, but have a range of strategies in place to promote and support the recruitment and retention of people with disability. These are described at (3) and (4) above.

(7) FaHCSIA has a range of policies, products and services in place to support the recruitment of people with disability. A number of these policies, programs and services have previously been outlined in the answers to questions (3), (4) and (6).

FaHCSIA has two policies that guide the recruitment and retention of people with disabilities. The Recruitment and Retention of People with Disability Policy outlines FaHCSIA's processes for the recruitment and retention of people with disability to promote the inclusion of people with disability, and the Reasonable Adjustment Policy addresses the implementation of reasonable adjustment through attraction, recruitment, retention and professional development.

In addition to the policies and programs previously outlined in the answers to questions (3), (4) and (6), FaHCSIA offers a range of services to ensure accessibility for people with disability including a National Car Parking Policy which supports employees to access their workplace. A case management service is offered to employees with disabilities. This service assists the employee to obtain reasonable adjustment and effective job design.

FaHCSIA remains an active member of the Australian Public Service Commission Disability Steering Group. This group is attended by HR practitioners from across multiple agencies that identify and progress APS-wide initiatives on disability and provides opportunities for FaHCSIA to share information about the traineeship and other FaHCSIA employment and support initiatives.

FaHCSIA follows the mandatory requirements of the Australian Government Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The FaHCSIA website is generally rated at double A (highest possible level of accessibility is triple A). Some documents are published in more than one format. Web pages are made available in HTML format for the greatest level of accessibility where feasible.

(8) FaHCSIA's policies, programs and services concerning the employment of staff with disability have been previously outlined in the answers to Questions (3) to (7). FaHCSIA regularly reviews these policies to ensure they remain up to date and aligned to other HR policies and programs.

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

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 May 2011:

For each financial year from 2012-13 to 2021-22, what are the expenditure estimates or projections for each specific measure related to the imposition of the Mineral Resources Rent Tax, including:

(a) the proposed increase in the Superannuation Guarantee levy, from 9 per cent to 12 per cent;

(b) the proposed Regional Infrastructure Fund;

(c) the proposed reduction in the company tax rate; and

(d) any other proposed related measures.

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

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

Estimates of the impact of budget measures have been provided in the Budget papers for the relevant forward estimates period, as required under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998. Treasury does not, in general, undertake costings beyond the forward estimates as these estimates are generally not deemed to be sufficiently reliable for budgeting purposes.

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

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 19 May 2011:

(1) What is the approval process for exploration and mining proposals on Australian Defence Force land.

(2) At what point is there an opportunity for a public comment component in the approval process for mining proposals on Australian Defence Force land.

(3) At what stage in the approval process is the Paladin Energy Ltd proposal, with regard to the uranium deposit at Oobagooma in the Kimberley.

(4) Is Paladin Energy Ltd currently undertaking exploration activity.

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

The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) The approval process for exploration and mining proposals on 'Australian Defence Force land' is determined by two factors: firstly, the legal basis upon which the Commonwealth owns, occupies and otherwise manages land situated within Australia; and secondly, the relevant mining law of the State or the Territory jurisdiction within which the land is situated.

Where the Department of Defence (Defence) occupies land that is vested in the Commonwealth, exploration and mining proposals come within the ambit of section 124 of the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 (LAA). Under the LAA, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation has the authority to authorise the right to access land vested in the Commonwealth for the purpose of mineral exploration. In the event of an application to undertake mining for minerals on land vested in the Commonwealth, the Governor-General may authorise the grant of a lease or a licence for this purpose. In all cases, it is necessary for the applicant seeking access to explore and/or to mine on land that is vested in the Commonwealth to hold a State or Territory exploration licence, or a mining licence, for the land in question.

Prior to making a decision on access to Commonwealth land for exploration and/or mining, care is taken to ensure that all relevant interests in the land are identified and considered before an access decision is made by either the Minister or by the Governor-General. The range of possible interests may include native title rights or other indigenous interests, heritage issues and environmental matters. Advice on possible interests in the land is sought from relevant Commonwealth departments and agencies, and from relevant State departments and agencies, early in the decision making process.

A guide to the Commonwealth's decision making process, in relation to land within the ambit of the LAA, has been published on the Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) internet:

(http://development.finance.gov.au/property/lands-acquisition/access-commonwealth-land-mining-activities.html).

Where Defence occupies land that is not vested in the Commonwealth (for example, land occupied under a lease, a licence or a declaration of prohibition), the process for approving applications to access the land is determined by Defence. Once again, it is necessary for the applicant to hold a relevant State or Territory licence to explore and/or to mine for minerals on that parcel of land.

In essence, Defence will consider an application to obtain access to the land where the applicant has a relevant State or Territory licence (e.g., an exploration licence) and the proposed access will not interfere with Defence's use of the land. In the event that Defence agrees to allow access to the land, Defence will require the applicant to enter into a 'Deed of Access'.

(2) The opportunity for public comment in the approval process for mining proposals is governed by the laws of the relevant State or Territory that deal with applications for exploration and mining licences.

(3) Paladin Energy Ltd has applied for access to Commonwealth owned land in the Kimberley region of Western Australia - described as the Yampi Sound Training Area (YSTA) - that is occupied and used by the Department of Defence.

In this case, the Commonwealth is unable to authorise access to the YSTA for mineral exploration other than with the prior agreement of the Western Australian Government, because minerals in the YSTA are reserved to the Crown in right of Western Australia. To date, Western Australian has not granted an exploration licence to Paladin Energy Ltd in relation to minerals in the YSTA that are vested in the State of Western Australia. 

Finance is working with the Western Australia Department of Mines and Petroleum to develop a memorandum of understanding that would enable Paladin's application to be considered by both Western Australia and the Commonwealth in the near future.

(4) Finance is not in the position to provide advice on Paladin's exploration activity. Information about Paladin Energy Ltd's exploration activity in Australia and overseas should be sought from the Company.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, upon notice, on 24 May 2011:

Does the department recognise employees with awards for years of service; if so: (a) what lengths of service are recognised; (b) what type of awards are given to employees who reach each various milestones; (c) what categories of employees, if any, do not receive such awards; and (d) what is: (i) the cost to the department of this program, and (ii) the unit cost of individual awards.

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

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

(a) The department recognises employees with awards for years of service. There are currently three programs which related to the former agencies within the portfolio:

(i) Centrelink recognised 10, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 years of continuous APS service.

(ii) Medicare Australia recognised 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 years of continuous Health Insurance Commission/ Medicare Australia service.

(iii) Department of Human Services (DHS) including the Child Support Program (CSP) recognised 10, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 45 years of continuous APS service.

The department is integrating the current Award and Honours programs and will offer one departmental program by August 2011.

(b) (i) Centrelink:

10 years – Letter from Branch or Area Manager

20 years – CEO certificate

25 years – CEO certificate and gift to the value of $150.00

30 years – CEO certificate and gift to the value of $200.00

35 years – CEO certificate and gift to the value of $250.00

40 years – Letter from CEO

(ii) Medicare Australia:

5 years – Public announcement in agency newsletter

10 years – Certificate and pin

15 years – Certificate and pin

20 years – Certificate and pin

25 years – Certificate, pin and gift to the value of $200.00

30 years – Certificate and pin

35 years – Certificate and pin

40 years – Public announcement

(iii) DHS and CSP:

10 years – Letter from Deputy Secretary

20 years – Certificate from Deputy Secretary

25 years – Certificate, gift or donation to the value of $150.00

30 years – Certificate, gift or donation to the value of $200.00

35 years – Certificate, gift or donation to the value of $250.00

45 years – Letter from Deputy Secretary

(c) Non-ongoing employees and contractors are not included in these programs.

(d) (i) The cost to the Human Services portfolio for the year 2010-11 was around $165,000. In the 2010-11 year 4016 employees achieved a service milestone which equates to $41.00 each.

(ii) The unit cost of each award is in the table below:

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

asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 24 May 2011:

To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—

Has the department contracted ASG Group to provide project management services; if so: (a) can a complete description of the project and ASG's role be provided; (b) what was the rationale for using direct procurement in this instance; and (c) what is the value of: (i) ASG's contract, and (ii) the entire project.

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

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

The department has contracted the ASG Group to provide managed ICT services.

(a) The ASG Group is the service provider for corporate ICT network and infrastructure support, including the desktop and server environment.

(b) Through this contract, ASG Group are engaged to undertake ICT projects, this has included the rollout of a new desktop to staff and the replacement of the department's ICT network infrastructure.

(c) ASG was the successful tenderer for the provision of ICT managed services to the department in an open approach to the market.

(d) The value of ASG contract is $6.06 million over 3 years. There are a further 3 one year options in this contract should the department choose to take-up an option. Within the contract there is the ability for project work to be undertaken by the service provider on a fee for service basis.

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

asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 24 May 2011:

Did the department buy an office suite for the National Broadband Network (NBN) or an 'NBN Office Suite' in 2008 from Design Craft Furniture; if so: (a) what pieces were bought; (b) who were they for; (c) who selected the suite; (d) is the suite still in use and where; (d) what was the total cost of the suite; and (e) what did this office suite have to do with the NBN.

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

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

Yes

(a) 3 SES office suites.

(b) Additional SES officers employed by the department for the National Broadband Network (NBN) Program.

(c)    The suites were selected to match existing SES office suites in the department.

(d) Yes within the department in SES offices.

(d) $40,500 exclusive of GST for three office suites.

(e) The suites were used to furnish offices for additional SES officers employed by the department for the NBN program.

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

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 May 2011:

(1)   Under the fuel tax credit scheme providing rebates for off-road diesel use: (a) what was the total rebate paid to the mining industry in the 2009-10 financial year; and (b) can a breakdown of that figure be provided according to each of the following mining industry sectors: (i) coal mining, (ii) oil and gas mining, (iii) metal ore mining, (iv) construction material mining, (v) other non-metallic mineral mining and quarrying, (vi) exploration, and (vii) other mining support services.

(2)   (a) Which mining companies received the 10 highest rebates in the 2009-10 financial year; and (b) for each, what was the name of the company and the amount of rebate received.

(3)   (a) What was the total deduction claimed in the 2009-10 financial year for the mining and quarrying exploration and prospecting deduction; and (b) which companies claimed the 10 largest deductions in the 2009-10 financial year.

(4)   (a) What was the total amount claimed in the 2009-10 financial year in accelerated depreciation; (b) what part of that amount was claimed by the mining industry sectors; and (c) which mining companies claimed the 10 largest deductions.

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

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

(1) (a) Total fuel tax credits paid in 2009-10 was $5 billion. According to the published ATO Taxation Statistics 2009-10 (page 133), the mining industry was paid $1.89 billion in fuel tax credits in 2009-10.

(1) (b) In claiming fuel tax credits, businesses provide only one industry code (ie ANZSIC). They are however often involved in multiple mining activities. The table below provides a breakdown of the mining industry by this singular industry code.

(2) Due to the operation of the secrecy provisions under Division 355, Schedule 1 of the Tax Administration Act 1953 (particularly section 355-25) the Commissioner of Taxation is unable to disclose information concerning the taxation affairs of individual taxpayers. The information requested does not fall within the exceptions set out in this division..

(3) (a) Data on the total deduction for mining and quarrying exploration and prospecting expenses is not available. However, as at 7 June 2011, for the 2009-10 income year, the value claimed for the decline in value of depreciating assets used in exploration or prospecting was approximately $8 billion, rounded to the nearest billion. This amount is a component of the total deduction for mining and quarrying exploration and prospecting that would have been claimed for the 2009-10 income year.

(3) (b) As per the response to (3) (a), the data required to answer this question is not available.

(4) (a) Information on accelerated depreciation is not collected separately from information on deprecation generally. Consequently, the total amount of accelerated deprecation claimed in any one year is not known.

(4) (b) As noted in (4) (a), data on accelerated depreciation is not available. However, there is data to show that the mining sector claimed deductions for total depreciation (accelerated depreciation and other depreciation) of approximately $11 billion (rounded to the nearest billion) in the 2008-09 year.

(4) (c) As noted in (4) (a), data on accelerated depreciation is not available.

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

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 27 May 2011:

(1)   How many act of grace payments have been approved by the Minister since 24 November 2007 where the department recommended against approval.

(2)   What was the reason for, the date of approval of and value of each of the above act of grace payments.

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

The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

It is not normal practice to disclose the Department's advice to the Minister.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 8 June 2011:

(1) Has the Australian Federal Police (AFP) been notified of or investigated war crime allegations against Australian–Sri Lankan citizen Palitha Kohona.

(2) Has the AFP contacted the Sri Lankan Government or the United Nations to investigate the allegations; if so, what is the current status of the case.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is currently evaluating this matter with a view to determining any potential breaches of Australian law.

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

asked the President of the Senate, upon notice, on 9 June 2011:

(1) With reference to Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) staffing numbers and staff management policies:

(a) what is the current number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff and at what levels are these positions classified;

(b) what is the projected number of FTE staff and associated classifications for the next 3 financial years;

(c) for each calendar year since 2005, can figures be provided for:

(i) the number of staff separations from DPS,

(ii) the number of separations in the following categories: termination, resignation, retirement (age), retirement (other) or death, return to home agency, end of non-ongoing employment, and transfer or promotion to another agency, and

(iii) the number of incidents of bullying reported to or recorded by DPS;

(d) what measures (in detail) have been taken by DPS to address complaints and incidents of bullying in the workplace;

(e) have any incidents of bullying been identified through staff exit surveys; and

(f) what measures does DPS use to assess the success of measures to counter bullying in the workplace.

(2) With reference to the treatment by DPS of billiard tables and other equipment from the former staff recreation room:

(a) apart from the two billiard tables sold through ALLBIDS Auctions, what has become of all other furniture, fittings and fixtures from the former staff recreation room, including the following items:

(i) pool table,

(ii) ping pong table,

(iii) dart board and cupboard,

(iv) trophy cabinets and trophies,

(v) piano,

(vi) tables,

(vii) chairs,

(viii) light fixtures,

(ix) carpet,

(x) accessories, and

(xi) any other items;

(b) for all items disposed of, can the following details be provided:

(i) any heritage assessment, significance or expert advice undertaken, assessed or obtained before disposal,

(ii) the manner of disposal,

(iii) whether any intermediary such as an auction house was used in the disposal,

(iv) the original value,

(v) the valuation prior to sale, and the basis of that valuation and of the original valuation,

(vi) any reserve set,

(vii) the value realised through sale,

(viii) the destination of any funds realised, and

(ix) any other details available including the date of sale, provenance and ownership of the item, and identity of the purchaser;

(c) if any items from the former staff recreation room were retained, can details be provided of the retained items, including their current location and plans for future use; and

(d) was Old Parliament House contacted before the sale of the billiard tables; if so, when and with what response; if not, why not.

(3) With reference to the construction of the Parliament House briefing room:

(a) how many DPS staff were displaced by the construction of the briefing room;

(b) where are those displaced staff currently located; and

(c) how many of those staff have moved, or will move, into the new office accommodation on the site of the former staff recreation room.

(4) With reference to the asset management policies and practices of DPS, including, but not limited to, the Parliament building itself, and its furniture and artworks:

(a) can details be provided of any charter for managing Parliament House and related assets, including governance arrangements and authority to dispose of items;

(b) can an account be provided of the disposal policies and procedures followed by DPS, including: the procedures involved for initiation and consideration of disposal proposals, the decision-making processes, the valuation of items to be disposed of, the basis on which the value of assets is assessed as appreciating or depreciating, and procedures for ensuring value for money is achieved in the disposal process;

(c) when items are disposed of for sale, is there any policy in relation to the disclosure during the sale process of the Parliament House provenance of the items;

(d) does DPS maintain a register of assets, including artworks; if so, how are items recorded and updated;

(e) when was the last full audit of DPS assets conducted, by whom was it conducted and what was the outcome, including the number, value and significance of any items missing or unaccounted for and action taken to locate them;

(f) can details be provided of any original Parliament House items disposed of since 2000, including the reason for disposal, the value of the items and the manner of disposal; and

(g) in relation to furniture, can details be provided of any items of furniture that have been replaced since the building opened in 1988, together with:

(i) the reason for replacing them,

(ii) the date of replacement,

(iii) details of plans for future replacement of furniture as reported in the press on 21 May 2011,

(iv) the rationale for the planned replacements,

(v) the original value of the items to be replaced,

(vi) the cost of planned furniture replacement,

(vii) an assessment of how the quality and design of the replacement furniture compares with the original furniture, and

(viii) procedures for ensuring that the design elements of the original furniture are maintained in the replacement furniture.

(5) With reference to the Bertoia diamond chairs and other original outdoor furniture at Parliament House:

(a) can details be provided of any original outdoor furniture that has been disposed of, including:

(i) any heritage assessment, significance or expert advice undertaken, assessed or obtained before disposal,

(ii) manner of disposal,

(iii) whether any intermediary such as an auction house was used in the disposal,

(iv) original value,

(v) the valuation prior to sale, and the basis of that valuation and of the original valuation,

(vi) any reserve set,

(vii) value realised through sale,

(viii) destination of any funds realised, and

(ix) any other details available, including: the date of sale, provenance and ownership of the item, and identity of the purchaser;

(b) if original outdoor furniture has been retained, can details be provided of its current location and any future plans in relation to it;

(c) can details be provided of any new outdoor furniture that has been acquired; and

(d) can the following details be provided in relation to the Bertoia diamond chairs:

(i) how many have been sold or otherwise disposed of,

(ii) what were the proceeds of any sale,

(iii) is DPS satisfied that value for money was achieved in any sale of the Bertoia diamond chairs,

(iv) if any Bertoia diamond chairs were disposed of, did DPS undertake a heritage assessment of the items before the sale, and

(v) if a heritage assessment was undertaken, by whom was it undertaken and what qualifications or expertise did they have.

(6) With reference to the terracotta pot plant holders previously located throughout Parliament House:

(a) what is the current location of the terracotta pot plant holders and are there any future plans in relation to them;

(b) if any of the terracotta pot plant holders have been disposed of, can the following details be provided:

(i) whether any heritage assessment, significance or expert advice was undertaken, assessed or obtained before disposal,

(ii) the manner of disposal,

(iii) whether any intermediary such as an auction house was used in the disposal,

(iv) the original value,

(v) the valuation prior to sale, and the basis of that valuation and of the original valuation,

(vi) any reserve set,

(vii) the value realised through sale,

(viii) the destination of any funds realised, and

(ix) any other details available, including: the date of sale, provenance and ownership of the item, and identity of the purchaser; and

(c) what is the estimated value of the original collection of terracotta pot plant holders.

(7) With reference to the heritage management of Parliament House:

(a) has Parliament House been nominated for Heritage Listing; if so, can full details be provided;

(b) is DPS satisfied that it has discharged all of its responsibilities to ensure that Parliament House complies with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the Commonwealth Heritage List, the Commonwealth Heritage Management Principles, and the National Heritage List; if so, how has this been achieved; if not, why not;

(c) what strategies does DPS employ to ensure that:

(i) the original design elements of Parliament House, and

(ii) the integrity of the original design and construction of Parliament House, are maintained to the appropriate standard for the estimated 200 year life of the building, and how are these documented and reported;

(d) can copies be provided of the current and all previous versions of the Heritage Strategy for Parliament House, including the date of each draft, and its current status and author/s;

(e) who was consulted in the preparation of the Heritage Strategy for Parliament House;

(f) is there any independent or expert oversight of Parliament House in relation to heritage management and design integrity;

(g) does DPS retain spare original building materials, fixtures and fittings to meet the requirement of the building throughout its 200 year life; if so, can details be provided, including quantities of such materials and their original value;

(h) has DPS disposed of any spare original building components, materials, fixtures and fittings; if so, can full details be provided, including: the rationale for the disposal, whether any heritage assessment was undertaken, the manner of disposal, the original value of the materials, and the value realised from the sale or disposal;

(i) in managing projects to upgrade physical security or disability access or in undertaking modernising works, what procedures does DPS employ to manage the heritage aspects of the work; and

(j) are architects engaged by DPS required to provide:

(i) written reports to confirm how their new work conforms to the design integrity of Parliament House, and

(ii) heritage impact statements as part their work.

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

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

1 On 9 June 2011, Senator Faulkner gave notice of his Question (#682) to the President of the Senate. Question 682 was divided into seven parts—and each of those parts was also divided into several sub-parts.

2 As a preliminary to the detailed answer to each question, the following overview of DPS procedures and some history is provided as background information.

Heritage and asset management

3 DPS is responsible for management of thousands of Commonwealth assets within the Parliament House building and precincts. This responsibility was inherited primarily from the former Joint House Department, Department of Parliamentary Reporting Staff, and the Department of the Parliamentary Library in 2004 and, before that, the Parliament House Construction Authority (PHCA).

4 Not all assets and items of heritage value (or potential heritage value) located within Parliament House are the responsibility of DPS. Some are controlled by the Chamber departments and the Department of Finance and Deregulation. Some of the assets for which DPS has (temporary) stewardship are on loan.

5 Heritage value changes over time—an item that may be assessed as having no heritage value at any given point in time could later be assessed as having major heritage value and significance. Different people will also hold different views about the relative importance of items and their priority for preservation. The challenges associated with determining heritage significance are identified in work done under the auspices of the Collection Council of Australia's Significance Methodology1 (Attachment A). The Significance Methodology is now widely used across the cultural heritage sector, and within DPS, and was refined over a ten-year period (originally released in 2001, and then substantially reviewed and re-released in 2009). The methodology provides a standard set of criteria for defining "the meaning and values of a cultural heritage item or collection". However, the authors also note that significance is "relative, contingent and dynamic".

6 There is a very broad framework of governance and policy and procedural documents that apply to this asset and heritage management role for DPS. These documents range from 'whole-of-government' instruments—such as legislation, regulations, Finance Minister's Orders and Department of Finance guidelines—through to specific DPS policies, procedures and guidelines. A number of these are outlined in more detail in the responses that follow.

7 This governance and policy framework is not static. The approach across the Commonwealth to accounting for and managing assets—including cultural heritage assets—has evolved over the past decade or so.

8 There are a number of control mechanisms in place to support this governance framework. DPS is audited annually by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) as part of annual reporting processes. Additionally, the DPS Executive approves an annual internal audit program that is overseen by the Audit Committee of DPS. The Audit Committee has an independent Chair.

9 DPS takes its asset management role very seriously, as well as its responsibility for upholding heritage values inherent in the building (and embodied in moveable objects within the building). The resource implications of managing and maintaining this extensive collection of assets are significant. Judgements will always have to be exercised about the relative priority of the range of tasks to be undertaken, as well as the relative value of the assets requiring our care and attention. This is particularly difficult in the context of an operating budget that is progressively diminishing in real terms and the expectations of the community about prudent financial management in the public sector. DPS must also strike a balance between the sometimes competing requirements of managing heritage issues and satisfying building occupants' requirements for a functional, efficient and safe workplace.

10 In relation to the classification of heritage items as cultural heritage assets (and consequent implications for disposal of those assets), the Finance Minister's Orders relating to Heritage and Cultural Assets state2:

(a) 37.1 Heritage and cultural items must only be recognised as assets where they meet the asset definition and recognition criteria set out in AASB 116 or AASB 138.

(b) 37.2 Only assets that are primarily used for purposes that relate to their cultural, environmental or historical significance are to be accounted for as heritage and cultural assets.

(c) 37.51P Heritage and cultural items do not include structures constructed to assist with the display, transport or storage of the asset. For example, backdrops, hanging apparatus, storage racks or protective cases are not captured by the definition of a heritage or cultural asset unless the item has such value in its own right or is an integral part of the item. An example of an asset being an integral part of a heritage and cultural asset might be the original frame surrounding a painting that is classified as a heritage and cultural asset.

Asset Recognition Criteria

(d) 37.71G Not all heritage or cultural items will meet the accounting definition of assets despite having intrinsic heritage value. Only items that are useful to the entity in achieving its objectives and have a financial value that can be reliably measured are recognised as assets.

(e) 37.72G Where a heritage and cultural asset is irreplaceable and has no market price, it is unlikely that its value can be reliably measured.

Heritage and Cultural Items

(f) 37.73G The AAS contemplate indefinite useful lives for some assets and non-depreciation in circumstances where assets have indefinite useful lives.

(g) 37.74G Heritage and cultural assets are assets used for the community's benefit, and represent, in part, Australia's cultural and historic background. Generally such assets attract funding from the budget for preservation, curation and restoration activity, ensuring these assets remain part of Australia's heritage for as long as possible.

(h) 37.75G Heritage and cultural items are buildings, other structures, works of art, artefacts, collectables, historical treasures, nature reserves, national parks, or similar items, which are used for their cultural, environmental or historical significance. Heritage and cultural assets will generally be:

(i) 37.77G One example of an item subject to section 37.2 is buildings of historical interest that are used primarily to provide office accommodation. These should not be accounted for as heritage and cultural assets.

11 Based on the Finance Minister's Orders, the following comprise the Heritage and Cultural assets over which DPS has stewardship.

(a) rotational art collection;

(b) architectural commissions (which comprise artworks commissioned during the design of the building, including some furniture);

(c) Historical Memorials Collection;

(d) Official Gift Collection;

(e) constitutional documents; and

(f) archive materials.

12 These collections had a total value of some $77.4 million at mid-2010 and are frequently referred to as the Parliament House Art Collection.

13 Classification and listing of other items that might have heritage or historic value has been an iterative process, and, in many cases, DPS (and the previous Joint House Department) inherited responsibility for items that were not registered as assets, or items that were registered as assets but were very poorly described and controlled. Over a number of years, there has been significant work done to improve the quality and accuracy of asset registers.

14 Decisions about the retention or disposition of assets with some historic or heritage significance require an awareness of the resource implications and sustainability of retention of the material. In particular, classification of items as cultural heritage assets carries an obligation to store and preserve that material for indefinite periods in accordance with relevant standards. This incurs a significant cost for the Commonwealth. This issue is reflected in the Finance Minister's Orders [see para 10(f)–(g) above]. In the last decade or so, this point has also been reinforced by the ANAO in its 19983 (Attachment B) and 20054 (Attachment C) performance audits relating to safeguarding national collections. In particular, the 1998 audit report made the following note.

The ANAO recommends that, in order to ensure the continuing quality of their collections, all institutions allocate a high priority to identifying items for possible disposal, except those items covered by legal deposit obligations or equivalent.

15 The authors of Significance also note that "significance assessment is vital to make the best use of scarce resources for collecting, conserving, documenting and digitising".

16 Since 2006, DPS has made useful progress in managing cultural heritage items and other building related assets, including the following.

(a) Systems and procedures have been progressively developed for management of the Parliament House Art Collection (including the Historic Memorials Collection and Official Gifts Collection, and art furniture). Many important items were either not previously listed as part of the collection, or their listing was incomplete or inaccurate. Artworks and gifts have been fully catalogued and described; independent formal valuations have been conducted; and policies and guidelines relating to their care and use developed and implemented. This has also led to better conservation and maintenance outcomes, and improved inventory control for these items.

(b) Refinement of the DPS approach to capital works, to take account of heritage and design integrity considerations.

(c) Environmental management and performance targets—such as energy consumption reductions and implementation of water restrictions—have been achieved without long-term impact on the building and precincts Where there is impact (such as by turning-off water features), other compensatory measures have been put in place.

17 The building itself, and the most important objects and artworks within it—such as Magna Carta, the Tom Roberts painting, and the Great Hall Tapestry—are regularly evaluated and independently confirmed as being in very good condition.

18 Nevertheless, we recognise the need for continual improvement and have taken the opportunity—following the May Budget Estimates hearings—to initiate a number of new measures including an internal audit investigation into the disposal of two billiard tables; a review of asset disposal policies; and a survey to identify and assess items with potential heritage values (beyond the Parliament House Art Collection). These activities will supplement work that DPS had already commenced to finalise a Heritage Management Framework for Parliament House.

Answer

(1) (a) As at 23 June 2011, the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) by classification is detailed in the following table. It should be noted that FTE varies from fortnight to fortnight as a result of the use of casual employees. The FTE figure at 23 June reflects payments to casuals employed during the May/June sitting weeks.

(b) The Average Staffing Level (ASL), or average FTE for 2010-11 was 721. The projected number of ASL or average FTE for 2011-2012 is 724. No projections have been made on associated classifications for 2011-12. No projections have been made on numbers and classifications for 2012-13 and 2013-14.

(c) (i) and (ii) The number of staff separations and method of separation for calendar year 2005 to 23 June 2011 are detailed in the table over the page

(iii) DPS's Exit Interview records refer to 'workplace harassment' OR workplace harassment, bullying or discrimination'—bullying is not specified separately. Below is listed the number of incidents of workplace harassment-type incidents reported to or recorded by DPS.

* The instance in 2010–11 led to a formal investigation. Formal investigations were conducted for 2 of the 5 instances in 2009–10.

(d) DPS deals with complaints and incidents of workplace harassment and bullying in the following ways:

Policies on appropriate workplace behaviour

DPS has incorporated its commitment to the Parliamentary Service Values and Code of Conduct in the following key corporate documents:

DPS also has the following policies and guidelines that govern behaviour in specific contexts:

Governance papers

No. 24 External Communications ( Attachment F )

Personnel/HR papers

No. 4 Workplace Diversity ( Attachment G )

No. 8 Behaviour outside the workplace ( Attachment H )

No. 9 Performance Management ( Attachment I )

No. 24 Performance Management for SES ( Attachment J )

No. 34 Internet and email use ( Attachment K )

People Management Paper 1.1

No 1.1—Procedures—Procedures for investigating and determining breaches of the Code of Conduct (includes Parliamentary Service Values and Parliamentary Service Code of Conduct) (Attachment L)

OHS papers

No. 6 Workplace harassment and bullying ( Attachment M )

The potential consequences of not following these policies/guidelines are clearly articulated.

Performance Management

Expectations of appropriate behaviour and adherence to the Parliamentary Service Values and Code of Conduct are integrated into performance agreements and reviews. Refer to Personnel/HR Paper No 9-Performance Management ( Attachment I ) and Personnel/HR Paper No 24-Performance Management: Senior Executive Service ( Attachment J ).

Informal processes to resolve issues

If an employee believes that they are being, or have been, harassed in the workplace, there are a number of informal avenues available to resolve the situation including:

These informal avenues are outlined in OHS Paper 6–Policy–Workplace harassment and bullying ( Attachment M ) .

Formal processes to resolve issues

If informal approaches fail to resolve the situation, or if the alleged harassment is serious in nature, the following formal processes are available:

These formal processes are outlined in OHS Paper 6–Policy–Workplace harassment and bullying ( Attachment M ).

Principles for managing workplace behaviour

The Workplace harassment and bullying policy includes principles for managing workplace behaviour to ensure procedural fairness.

Record keeping and access to records

The Workplace harassment and bullying policy states that proper records of every complaint and any action taken are to be maintained in the event that the complaint leads to further processes or misconduct.

Education and Awareness programs

DPS has education and awareness programs aimed at developing an awareness of what desirable behaviours are and how to encourage a culture of respect, as well as an awareness of what negative and unacceptable workplace behaviours are (ie bullying and harassment) and the consequences of the inappropriate behaviour. Examples of these training programs, provided regularly and corporately funded, are listed below:

(e) The exit interview survey asks if a respondent has ever experienced or observed workplace harassment, bullying or discrimination. The number of times that question is answered in the affirmative is provided in the table above. Where a former employee provides sufficient detail to identify any incident of alleged bullying, the processes and procedures outlined in OHS Paper 6—Policy—Workplace harassment and bullying ( Attachment M ) are followed.

(f) DPS analyses data collected through the following mechanisms for indicators of likely workplace issues and measures of success:

(i) Staff satisfaction surveys

(ii) Customer satisfaction surveys

(iii) Comparisons to other agencies (annual State of the Service reports)

(iv) Staff retention/turnover rates and unusual patterns of internal movements

(v) Rates of sick leave and other unscheduled absences

(vi) Information from exit interviews with specific questions about experiencing and witnessing harassment and bullying

(vii) The number, type and cost of compensation claims

(viii) Quarterly reports from DPS's Employee Assistance Provider, Davidson Trahaire Corpsych;

(ix) Number of staff attending targeted training

(x) Discussion at DPS Harassment Contact Officer Network meetings

(2) (a) Other furniture, fittings and fixtures from the former staff recreation room (in addition to billiard tables).

(i) pool table:   sold at auction.

(ii) ping pong tables: one relocated to Health and Recreation Centre, and one in storage.

(iii) dartboard and cupboard: relocated to DPS Building Fabrics Services (BFS)for storage and future reuse in APH.

(iv) trophy cabinet and trophies:

(v) piano: relocated to childcare centre for use with the children.

(vi) tables: relocated to furniture store for storage and future reuse in APH.

(vii) chairs: relocated to furniture store for storage and future reuse in APH.

(viii) light fixtures—down lights: reinstalled in Staff Dining Room.

   pendant lights: 4 x returned to DPS Electrical for future reuse in APH (spares)

     1 x returned to DPS Building Information for records.

     16 x disposed to scrap.

(ix) carpet: Staff Dining Room: most carpet retained in place; but, where replaced with parquetry, the carpet was disposed to landfill (being too worn for re-use)

  Staff Recreation Room: disposed to landfill (being too worn for re-use)

(x) accessories: Snooker Table rules: relocated to NG 61 (new office area that incorporates former Staff Recreation Room) to be hung on wall.

(xi) other items:

  7 x retained and reinstalled in NG 61

  2 x returned to DPS Building and Security Projects (BSP) for possible future reuse in APH. Stored in Plant Room 9.

   bottom panels: retained for refurbishment, modification and reinstalled in NG 61

   top panels: disposed to scrap.

   top panels: retained for refurbishment, modification and reinstalled in NG 61

   bottom panels: disposed to scrap.

  balance: disposed to scrap.

  other outlets: disposed to scrap.

(b) (i) The existing internal guidelines for DPS in CEP 4.3 make provision for consultation with DPS Art Services before disposal of any items with possible cultural and heritage values. However, none of the subject items for disposal were listed in the cultural and heritage asset class in the DPS asset registers.

(ii) The billiard tables and pool table were sold by auction. All other disposals (outlined above) went to scrap or landfill.

(iii) AllBids, for the auction items.

(iv) 2 x Billiard Tables original value $5,800 ea. No value recorded for the pool table or accessories.

(v) At time of sale, the billiard tables had a value of $1,500 each—the valuation was provided in June 2010 by the Australian Valuation Office.

(vi) Billiard tables each had a reserve of $2,500; pool table had a reserve of $2,000.

(vii) $2,500 for each billiard table; $2,000 for pool table. (AllBids initially underpaid DPS by $11.12 for the second billiard table.)

(vii) The items sold were administered assets and, as such, the funds realised by the sale were returned to the Official Public Account.

(ix) The sale of all three tables was settled on 6 September 2010. Records available to DPS indicated that the billiard tables were purchased by the PHCA for Parliament House and, prior to the 2010 sale, were owned by DPS. DPS has found no records about the acquisition of the pool table. AllBids does not disclose the identity of the purchaser. Subsequently, a DPS staff member has stated that he bought one of the billiard tables.

(c) See answers to (a) above.

(d) No, Old Parliament House (OPH) was not contacted before the sale of the billiard tables. Records showed that these tables were purchased new by the PHCA. It is noted that two other billiard tables had been returned to OPH in the year 2000.

(3) (a) 18

(b) Displaced staff were from the Governance and Business Management (GBM), and Strategy sections. GBM staff are currently in the new accommodation (NG 61)—which includes the site of the former Staff Recreation Room. Strategy staff are now permanently located in S1 118 as a result of a series of office moves that were facilitated by the creation of office space in NG 61.

(c) The new NG 61 accommodation has facilities for 65 staff. By late 2011, it will be fully occupied by staff from the Projects Branch, including the Art Services section. GBM and Strategy staff will be located, next to the DPS Executive, in space vacated as a result of a series of moves made possible by the transfer of Projects and Art Services staff to NG 61. Amongst other matters, consolidation of Projects staff and Art Services staff in NG 61 will release space in the Parliamentary Library for possible use by the proposed Parliamentary Budget Office.

(4) Information relating specifically to the Parliament House Art Collection (PHAC) (which includes the Gifts Collection and commissioned art furniture) is provided first in response to sub-questions—(a)–(f)—followed by information relating to other (non-PHAC) assets managed by DPS.

Parliament House Art and Gifts Collections

(a) Policies specifically related to management of the Parliament House Art Collection include the following.

(i) Operating Policy and Procedure No. 17—Parliament House Art Collection (incorporates the Rotational Collection Acquisition Policy) (AttachmentN);

(ii) Operating Policies and Procedures No. 19—Allocation of artworks to Members of Parliament (Attachment O)

(iii) Official Gifts Collection Policy (Attachment P)

(iv) Historic Memorials Collection: Guidelines for the selection of artists and processes for the procurement of portraits (Attachment Q)

(v) Parliament House Art Collection De-accessioning Policy (Attachment R)

(vi) Art Advisory Committee Terms of Reference (Attachment S)

(vii) Parliament House Art Collection—Stocktake procedures (Attachment T)

(b) The PHAC De-accessioning policy (Attachment R) defines procedures for PHAC disposals. The PHAC is independently re-valued every four years (most recent valuations—in 2005 and 2009—were conducted by the AVO).

(c) The PHAC De-accessioning policy states that: "Where appropriate, the Presiding Officersmay require any person or organisation arranging the sale of the de-accessioned item to keep its provenance confidential."

(d) The Art Services section of DPS maintains a collection management system (catalogue database), which records comprehensive details about the PHAC (including sub-collections such as the Historic Memorials Collection, Official Gifts Collection, commissioned Art Furniture, and archival materials designated for retention as part of the PHAC). Collection items are registered in the system by staff at the time of their acquisition (whether by purchase or gift) and updated as appropriate (for example, movement/location details are updated every time an item is moved). There are currently over 6000 records in the database; but not all 6000 records represent individual items. Some records represent 'parent' and 'child' components of items; and some items are listed for tracking and information management purposes, but are not assets that belong to DPS. Examples of these are the Tom Roberts painting, which is owned by the Royal Collection; and the Yirrkala Petitions, which are owned by the Department of the House of Representatives. The PHAC itself encompasses around 5000 artworks assets that are owned by DPS.

(e) A sample stocktake (equating to 10% of the Collection) is conducted each year by Art Services staff. The last 100% stocktake of the collection was conducted in 2005. The practice of undertaking annual 100% stocktakes of the PHAC has been discontinued, as it was very resource-intensive relative to the levels of risk, and had a major impact on normal service delivery.

An additional factor considered in moving to a sample approach is that the PHAC has very high mobility/visibility (eg high volumes of movement of artworks such as after an election). This process serves as a substantial stocktake and it can be quickly noted if items are missing—or some 'missing' items can be found to have just been mislocated (see table below). The sample stocktake approach is consistent with findings by the ANAO in the 2004–05 Audit Report Safe and Accessible National Collections7, (AttachmentC)and uses similar methodology to the Australian War Memorial, which was cited by the ANAO (in the 2004–05 audit report) as representing best practice.

Stocktake results for the last five years are summarised in the table below.

(f) Details of items disposed of or de-accessioned from the PHAC since 2000 are summarised in the table below. Many of the de-accessioning actions listed date from between 2003 and 2005—this relates to the progressive introduction (between 2001 and 2004) of a comprehensive catalogue database of items in the PHAC, and implementation of more rigorous stocktake procedures. Consequently it was identified that a number of items had been 'registered' in the collection prior to (or in) 1988, but had either been missing for sometime, or had never been physically transferred to Parliament House (some were also listed in asset registers of other cultural agencies).

In addition to items listed in the table below, there are a number of items that are currently listed as 'pending' for de-accessioning by DPS Art Services. These items include:

(i) a glass plate and a ceramic bowl that have been damaged beyond repair;

(ii) three items that were identified as missing in the 2002 and 2004 stocktakes (one craft item, one photograph, and one furniture item); and

(iii) a number of items that have been identified as highly suitable for transfer to the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House. These items originate from Old Parliament House (and some are physically located there), and records suggest they were never intended for permanent transfer to the new Parliament House, but final decisions were held off until the ongoing status of Old Parliament House was resolved.

Items that are identified as 'pending' de-accessioning will be referred to the Presiding Officers for consideration in due course, in accordance with the PHAC de-accessioning policy.

[Part 2 of Answer to (4)]

Non-PHAC assets

(a) DPS has asset accounting policies and procedures that comply with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA) and Regulations, the Finance Minister's Orders and the requirements of Australian Accounting Standards. Governance arrangements are set out in a range of documents (attached) including a set of DPS Chief Executive Instructions (CEIs) (Financial Paper No. 3—Chief Executive InstructionsAttachment U), which underpin the internal financial management practices of DPS; and Chief Executive Procedures (CEPs), which expand and underlie some of the CEIs. There is a specific CEP (4.3) (Attachment V) governing disposal of public property.

(b) The policy for disposal of assets is covered in the documents listed above. Valuations are conducted regularly—in accordance with attached DPS Financial Paper No. 2—Accounting Policy 2.1 Property, Plant and Equipment and Intangibles (Attachment W)—by independent, appropriately qualified valuers. DPS engages the Australian Valuation Office for the purpose of carrying out its valuations.

(c) For any items sold through AllBids, AllBids has advised that they do not disclose provenance of the items being disposed. However, items such as broadcast equipment may be sold through industry magazines or business contacts and origin may be known in these instances. CEP 4.3 does not contain any references to a requirement to disclose provenance of items to be disposed of. The practice of not disclosing the provenance of items has been in place for some years. A similar approach is taken by some comparable public sector agencies. DPS senior management acknowledges some advantages to this approach; but can also see disadvantages. DPS proposes to reconsider this matter, in light of the recommendations of the internal audit into the sale of the billiard tables.

(d) DPS maintains an asset register in accordance with the FMA Act and DPS Accounting Policy document 2.1 (Attachment W). Items are recorded in their appropriate asset class, wit