The DEPUTY PRESIDENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present documents listed on today’s Order of Business at item 17 which were presented to the President, the Deputy President and temporary chairs of committees since the Senate last sat. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised. The list read as follows— (a) Committee reports 1. Environment and Communications References Committee—Interim report—The status, health and sustainability of the koala population (received 13 May 2011) 2. Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Report—Child Support (Registration and Collection) Amendment Bill 2011 [Provisions] (received 19 May 2011) 3. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill and related bills [Provisions]— Interim report (received 20 May 2011) Final report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee (received 27 May 2011) 4. Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing—52nd report—Estimates for the Department of the Senate 2011-12 (received 24 May 2011) 5. Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Interim report—Exposure draft and explanatory memorandum of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2011 (received 25 May 2011) 6. Environment and Communications Legisla­tion Committee—Interim report—Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011 (received 27 May 2011) 7. Community Affairs References Committee—Interim report—Planning options and services for people ageing with a disability (received 30 May 2011) 8. Community Affairs References Committee—Interim report—Impacts of rural wind farms (received 30 May 2011) 9. Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee—Administration of health practitioner registration by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (received 3 June 2011) 10. Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee—Report—Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011 [Provisions] (received 3 June 2011) 11. Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Interim report—Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 [Provisions] (received 3 June 2011) 12. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—Interim report—Water Act 2007 provisions relating to the development of a Basin Plan (received 6 June 2011) 13. Community Affairs Legislation Committee––Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011 [Provisions] (received 9 June 2011) (b) Government responses to parliamentary committee reports 1. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Meat marketing— Interim report (received 20 May 2011) Final report (received 20 May 2011) 2. Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries—Final report—Food production in Australia (received 20 May 2011) 3. Community Affairs References Committee—Report—Hear us: Inquiry into hearing health in Australia (received 30 May 2011) 4. Economics References Committee––Report––The regulation, registration and remuneration of insolvency practitioners in Australia: the case for a new framework (role of liquidators and administrators)––Interim response, together with options paper: a modernisation and harmonisation of the regulatory framework applying to insol­vency practitioners in Australia (received 9 June 2011) (c) Government document Broadcasting Services Act 1992—Digital television transmission and reception (received 13 May 2011) (d) Reports of the Auditor-General 1. Report no. 40 of 2010-11—Performance audit—Management of the explosive ordnance services contract: Department of Defence (received 17 May 2011) 2. Report no. 41 of 2010-11—Performance audit—Maintenance of the Defence estate: Department of Defence (received 17 May 2011) 3. Report no. 42 of 2010-11—Performance audit—Establishment, implementation and administration of the council allocation component of the regional and local community infrastructure program: Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government (received 18 May 2011) 4. Report no. 47 of 2010-11—Performance audit—Development and administration of National Research Flagships: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (received 8 June 2011) (e) Statements of compliance and letters of advice relating to Senate orders 1. Statements of compliance relating to indexed lists of files: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) (received 20 May 2011) Commonwealth Ombudsman (received 6 June 2011) 2. Letter of advice relating to lists of contracts: Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio (received 17 May 2011) 3. Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency appointments and vacancies: Treasury portfolio (received 13 May 2011) Veterans’ Affairs portfolio (received 13 May 2011) Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio (received 16 May 2011) Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio (received 16 May 2011) Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (received 16 May 2011) Department of Infrastructure and Transport, and Infrastructure Australia [2] (received 16 and 23 May 2011) Australian Institute of Family Studies (received 17 May 2011) Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio (including a correction for the last round of estimates hearings) (received 17 May 2011) Attorney-General’s portfolio [2] (received 17 May and 9 June 2011) Climate Change and Energy Efficiency portfolio (received 17 May 2011) Office for the Arts (received 17 May 2011) Office for Sport (received 17 May 2011) Human Services portfolio (received 17 May 2011) Finance and Deregulation portfolio (received 17 May 2011) Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio (received 18 May 2011) Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (received 20 May 2011) Health and Ageing portfolio (received 24 May 2011) Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio (received 24 May 2011) Australian Information Commissioner (received 26 May 2011) National Archives of Australia (received 26 May 2011) Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General (received 27 May 2011) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Amendment (received 1 June 2011) 4. Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency grants: Treasury portfolio (received 13 May 2011) Veterans’ Affairs portfolio (received 13 May 2011) Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio (received 16 May 2011) Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (received 17 May 2011) Australian Institute of Family Studies (received 17 May 2011) Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio (received 17 May 2011) Attorney-General’s portfolio (received 17 May 2011) Climate Change and Energy Efficiency portfolio (received 17 May 2011) Office for the Arts [2] (received 17 and 24 May 2011) Office for Sport (received 17 May 2011) Human Services portfolio (received 17 May 2011) Finance and Deregulation portfolio (received 17 May 2011) Department of Infrastructure and Transport (received 18 May 2011) Health and Ageing portfolio (received 24 May 2011) Australian Information Commissioner (received 26 May 2011) National Archives of Australia (received 26 May 2011) Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General (received 27 May 2011) Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (received 27 May 2011) Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio (received 6 June 2011) Ordered that the committee reports be printed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In accordance with the usual practice and with the concurrence of the Senate I ask that the government responses be incorporated in Hansard. The documents read as follows— Senate Standing Committee for Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Meat Marketing Inquiry Interim Report September 2008 Response to Recommendations Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, through the forum of the Primary Industries Ministerial Council, seek the support of state and territory primary industries ministers to harmonise national standards for all domestic meat slaughtering and processing establishments. The committee further recommends that, regardless of the model adopted, the harmonised national standard must include maintenance of dentition as the standard for classifying an animal as lamb and must require that 100 per cent of animals classified as lamb are mouthed at slaughter. Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, through the forum of the Primary Industries Ministerial Council, consider the costs and benefits of applying the West Australian standard as the model for national harmonisation including examination of compliance and enforcement issues. Response to Recommendations 1 and 2 Agreed in part. The Australian Government supports harmonisation of national standards where possible including for all domestic meat slaughtering and processing establishments; provided these standards are voluntary and at the initiative of industry. The Australian Government does not agree that a national standard requires 100 per cent mouthing of animals classified as lamb at slaughter as this may prove onerous on some jurisdictions. Following the release of the Senate Standing Committee for Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport’s interim report of its Inquiry into Meat Marketing, the Hon. Tony Burke MP, former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry included the issue of meat marketing on the agenda of the November 2008 Primary Industries Ministerial Council (the council) meeting. The council established a working group which examined whether models used for all red meat, not just sheep meat, may be suitable for national adoption. One of the models considered was the Western Australian standard, which requires 100 per cent mouthing of animals at slaughter. The examination of models was undertaken in the context of considering the costs and benefits of adopting each model including compliance and enforcement issues. The working group provided a report to the council at its November 2009 meeting. In its report the working group found: that 100 per cent mouthing, a key component of the Western Australian lamb-branding model, may be onerous on some jurisdictions to introduce and enforce the costs of adopting a national scheme are likely to be minimal for major retailers due to the high standards of grading systems and record keeping already in place. The cost is likely to be much higher for the smaller independent retailers who may not have existing systems a prescriptive and mandatory labelling scheme also has the potential to discourage industry innovation and initiative in developing new labelling and branding systems such as the Meat Standards Australia grading system, as well as potentially removing flexibility in their application the working group and industry are of the opinion that, from a practical perspective, any adoption of a national labelling scheme should be in a uniform manner amongst the states. Extensive commercial difficulties would be created if jurisdictions chose to ‘go-it-alone’ in implementing labelling reform any additional costs associated with a national labelling system would be passed along the supply chain either to producers or to consumers. Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs consider, when available, the findings of the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Meat Industry Council's review of Lamb Brand Control and Verification. The committee recommends that, where appropriate and feasible, the relevant Commonwealth agencies assist the sheepmeat industry to implement recommendations arising from the review. Response to Recommendation 3 Agreed. The joint Sheepmeat Council of Australia/Australian Meat Industry Council report has not been completed. The Australian Gov­ernment understands that the industry decided not to finalise the report. Senate Standing Committee for Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Meat Marketing Inquiry Final Report Released 30 June 2009 Response to Recommendations Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Recommendation 1 The Commonwealth Government negotiates with the states and territories to have the AUS-MEAT system applying to exported meat extended to all domestic processors in Australia. Response to Recommendation 1 Noted. The Australian Government’s position is that any decision about the national adoption of the AUS-MEAT system in domestic processing establishments (which are overseen by the states and territories) should be by consensus through the Primary Industries Ministerial Council process, or by the initiation of industry. Legislation requiring the use of the AUS-MEAT language by retailers passed through the New South Wales Parliament on 26 November 2009. However, proclamation was delayed until an industry consultation process could take place. A retail reference group comprising New South Wales Government officials and beef industry representatives was formed to negotiate the contents of the underpinning regulations. Regulations under the New South Wales legislation came into effect in August 2010 with a moratorium on enforcement to February 2011. The regulations require retailers to label according to the Domestic Retail Beef Register created by AUS-MEAT. If a retail term contained in the register outside of the basic category of ‘beef’ is used then the label must also contain an age-based descriptor. The working group on meat marketing was established by the council to examine the national implications of the finalised NSW legislation. The working group found that the national implications of the legislation, in its current form, have not been significant. However, the industry remains concerned about the potential for unfavourable labelling requirements to be introduced in the future given legislation is now in place that enables the prescription of a labelling scheme. The working group also noted that other states and territories do not intend to introduce similar legislation in their jurisdictions. Recommendation 2 Subject to the current Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council review into food labelling, the government create separate country of origin labelling regulations for food products that recognise the importance of the origin of ingredients in processed food as well as the place where production processes occurred. Response to Recommendation 2 Noted. The current Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council policy guideline on country of origin labelling of food indicates that in developing a new standard for country of origin labelling in the Food Standards Code, FSANZ should ensure that: country of origin labelling applies to the whole food, not individual ingredients. Any amendments to this policy guideline would need to be agreed to by the Ministerial Council. There may be considerable costs to business in complying with a country of origin scheme based on ingoing ingredients. For example, manufacturers may need to maintain several lines of labels so they can be changed depending on the source of the ingredients in certain seasons or market conditions. The existing ‘Made in’ provisions in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 support the Australian manufacturing sector as a broad range or inputs, including ingredients, packaging, labour and overhead costs, are considered in determining a product’s eligibility to bear a ‘Made in Australia’ claim. The Council of Australian Governments agreed to the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council commissioning an independent review of food labelling laws and policy. This review provided for a comprehensive examination of food labelling laws and policies. The Committee undertaking the review was chaired by Dr Neal Blewett AC. Other committee members were public health law academic Dr Chris Reynolds, economic and consumer behaviour expert Dr Simone Pettigrew, food and nutrition policy academic Associate Professor Heather Yeatman, and food industry communications, marketing and corporate affairs professional Mr Nick Goddard. Terms of Reference for the review are available at http://www.foodlabellingreview.gov.au/internet/foodlabelling/publishing.nsf/Content/home Approximately 6 800 submissions were received. The final report was released on 28 January 2011. Any consideration of amending the current country of origin labelling policy or standard will be undertaken in the context of the Council of Australian Government’s consideration of the outcomes from the labelling review. AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL AND RELATED INDUSTRIES REPORT Inquiry report: Food production in Australia On 25 June 2008 the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries for report by 27 November 2009: Food production in Australia and the question of how to produce food that is: (a) affordable to consumers (b) viable for production by farmers and (c) of sustainable impact on the environment. The Select Committee subsequently sought and received extensions to the reporting date. The report, which included a dissenting report, was tabled in the Senate on 23 August 2010. The Select Committee report made four recommendations: 1. The committee recommends an audit be undertaken to establish the extent of foreign ownership of commercial agricultural and pastoral land, and ownership of water, in Australia, with particular emphasis on ownership by sovereign and part sovereign-owned companies. 2. The committee recommends that the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) report to the Senate on the current level of agricultural research in OECD countries as a percentage of GDP and the trend for investment over the last ten years. 3. The committee recommends that IP Australia advise the Senate what patents, if any, have been granted over biological discoveries as opposed to inventions, with reasons for them being granted. 4. The committee recommends that the senate re-establish the Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries in the new parliament to further examine issues relating to food production, including the implications of any proposed emissions trading scheme for affordable, sustainable food production and viable farmers. A dissenting report was prepared by Senators Sterle and O'Brien. The dissenting report raised issues that they believe the Select Committee should have pursued but made no recommendations. Australian Government Response The Australian Government has considered the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee report. The government's response to the recommendations is as follows. Senate Select Committee report Recommendation 1 The committee recommends an audit be undertaken to establish the extent of foreign ownership of commercial agricultural and pastoral land, and ownership of water, in Australia, with particular emphasis on ownership by sovereign and part sovereign-owned companies. The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation. Foreign investment is important to the Australian economy and to support economic growth and creation of jobs for Australians. Investment in agriculture, whether from foreign or domestic investors, helps to stimulate jobs on farms, and supports services such as harvesting, transport, and processing. These jobs have flow on effects for regional towns and communities through local purchases of inputs, machinery, and the general necessities of life. Moreover, new investment can help Australian agriculture to be more efficient, competitive and profitable in world markets, providing increased opportunities in global markets and access to new technologies and practices. The available evidence is limited but suggests the current level of foreign ownership of Australian agricultural land and water resources is very low. For example, a survey of commercial broadacre and dairy farms, conducted by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) in 2007-08, indicates that an overwhelming majority (99 per cent) of these farms are family operated. Of the remaining 1 per cent, it is estimated that only around 0.1 per cent are foreign owned. Broadacre and dairy farms account for around 70 per cent of Australian farm businesses. Further, investment in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector is a small part of overall foreign investment in Australia, ranging between 0.06 per cent and 1.53 per cent of approved proposals, by value, made through the Foreign Investment Review Board in the last ten years. However, the Australian Government recognises there are concerns about the sale of rural land and agricultural businesses to foreign investors. These concerns are compounded by the limited data available on foreign ownership. The government is addressing these concerns by taking action to strengthen the transparency of foreign ownership of rural land and agricultural food production. The Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Bill Shorten MP, has asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to collect more information about rural land and water ownership in order to provide a better statistical picture of the foreign investment landscape. In addition Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, has asked the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), in collaboration with ABARES, to report on the role and history of foreign ownership in the development of Australian agricultural land and the factors driving foreign investment in Australia. The RIRDC and the ABS are working to have this information available later in 2011. Senate Select Committee report Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) report to the Senate on the current level of agricultural research in OECD countries as a percentage of GDP and the trend for investment over the last ten years. The Australian Government does not agree to this recommendation. As there is an existing body of work in this area, the Australian Government does not consider it necessary for RIRDC to commission a specific study on this. Over recent years there have been many studies by ABARES and other researchers that have assessed expenditure on agricultural research and development over the long term. These studies have analysed the relationship between productivity growth in the agriculture sector and the drivers of that growth, including levels of investment in research and development. Agricultural research and development investment is an ongoing area of interest to the Australian Government and ABARES will continue to examine the relationship between productivity growth and research and development investment in Australian and other developed countries and disseminate results as appropriate. Much of the literature agrees that there are significant lags between research and development investments and the realisation of productivity benefits, often occurring over decades, highlighting the importance of taking a long term perspective to research and development funding. Analyses of investment in research and development are generally undertaken over multi-decadal time frames in order to identify investment trends and their impact on productivity growth. A number of international studies cite reduced investment in agricultural research and development as an important element contributing to the slow-down in agricultural productivity growth in recent years. Public sector investment in agricultural research and development in developed countries grew by an average of 1.89 per cent per year during the 1980s. However, this growth slowed to 0.38 per cent per year through the 1990's and has continued at around the same rate through the last decade (Pardey, 2009). These studies also use research intensity to compare the levels of agricultural research and development in different countries. Research intensity measures investment in agricultural research and development as a percentage of agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or the economic size of the agricultural sector, and provides a better basis for comparing relative levels of investment in agricultural research and development than when compared to national GDP. Pardey (2009) estimates that although public research intensity grew during the 1980's from 1.62 per cent to 2.33 per cent in 1991, it has remained static since (2.36 per cent in 2000). Public research intensity in developing countries has also remained relatively constant over the past 30 years, albeit at a much lower percentage than developed countries—around 0.5 per cent in 2000. In regard to Australia, studies (e.g. Mullen 2010 and Sheng et al 2010) indicate that public research intensity grew strongly from the early 1950s through to the late 1970s, peaking at between 4 and 5 per cent of agricultural GDP between 1978 and 1986. More recently, public research intensity in Australia has declined to around 3 per cent of agricultural GDP. Senate Select Committee report Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that IP Australia advise the Senate what patents, if any, have been granted over biological discoveries as opposed to inventions, with reasons for them being granted. The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Under Australian law, as prescribed by the Commonwealth Patents Act 1990, patents can only be granted for inventions. Discoveries are not inventions, and thus are not patentable, irrespective of whether they are biological or not. IP Australia, the government agency that administers Australia's intellectual property rights system, specifically patents, trade marks, designs and plant breeder's rights, applies Australian law in its assessment and decisions to grant IP rights. Senate Select Committee report Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that the senate re-establish the Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries in the new parliament to further examine issues relating to food production, including the implications of any proposed emissions trading scheme for affordable, sustainable food production and viable farmers. The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The decision to re-establish the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries is a matter for the Senate to consider. The Australian Government notes that the Senate Procedure Committee considers that there should be no more than three select committees at any one time. There are currently two select committees and one joint select committee; with two more joint select committees foreshadowed. References Mullen, J.D., 2010, “Agricultural Productivity Growth in Australia and New Zealand.” Chapter 5 of J.M. Alston, B.A. Babcock, and P.G. Pardy (eds.) Shifting Patterns of Agricultural Production and Productivity Worldwide, Iowa, April 2010. Pardy, P.G., 2009, “Reassessing Public-Private Roles in Agricultural R&D for Economic Development” in World Food Security- Can private Sector R&D Feed the Poor,? proceedings of The Crawford Fund annual conference, Canberra, 27 28 October 2009. Sheng, Y., Gray, E. and Mullen, J. 2010, “Public investment in R&D and extension and productivity in Australian broadacre agriculture”, Conference paper prepared for the 16th World Productivity Congress and 2010 European Productivity Conference at Antalya, Turkey, November 2010. Response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report HEAR US: INQUIRY INTO HEARING HEALTH IN AUSTRALIA MAY 2011 Hear Us: Inquiry into Hearing Health in Australia Government Response Introduction On 10 September 2009, the Senate referred a matter concerning the state of Hearing Health in Australia to the Community Affairs References Committee (the Committee). The Committee sought submissions and undertook extensive national hearings with stakeholders to examine the following issues: (a) the extent, causes and costs of hearing impairment in Australia; (b) the implications of hearing impairment for individuals and the community; (c) the adequacy of access to hearing services, including assessment and support services, and hearing technologies; (d) the adequacy of current hearing health and research programs, including education and awareness programs; and (e) specific issues affecting Indigenous communities. Over 180 submissions were received by the Committee and published on its website from a wide range of stakeholders. The Committee tabled its report, Hear Us: Inquiry into Hearing Health in Australia, in Parliament on 13 May 2010 making 34 recommendations.The Australian Government welcomes the Committee’s report and thanks the Committee for its considered approach to the recommendations made in the report. The Government recognises that currently the prevalence of hearing loss in Australia is estimated to be one in six, rising to one in four by 2050, making hearing health a significant issue for many individuals and also the wider Australian community. Hearing impairment affects individuals across their life course, requiring a range of service responses from early childhood to late adulthood, across disability, health, communication and other areas. These services assist hearing impaired people to engage socially and economically in the community and fulfil their life goals, are supported by professional bodies and a number of government agencies at both the Commonwealth and state/territory levels, and are delivered by providers in both the public and private sectors. The Government currently provides funding for a wide range of services and programs for people with hearing impairment. These include: the Hearing Services Program (HSP), providing hearing related services to eligible people; the funding of around 2000 Disability Employment Services assisting people with a disability, including hearing impairment, to secure and maintain sustainable employment; free Australia wide access to Auslan interpreter services for deaf adults and children attending private medical appointments; and funding for research through a number of arrangements such as the National Acoustic Laboratories, the HEARing Cooperative Research Centre, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the HSP Hearing Loss Prevention Program. The 2011-12 Federal Budget announced measures which will address a number of the recommendations and concerns outlined in the Committee’s report. Additional funding of $47.7 million over four years will support changes to the Australian Government’s Hearing Services Program (HSP) to provide for: extended eligibility for young people to hearing aids, services and cochlear speech processors; increased access to hearing aids and cochlear speech processors for more children, and additional hearing services and aids for Indigenous adults and people with complex hearing problems. Funding will also be provided for automation of application and voucher services to enable clients to access services faster and for service providers to electronically access client information to support them to provide more timely services to clients. The Budget provides new funding of $200 million through the More Support for Students with Disabilities Initiative to assist students with disabilities, including the hearing impaired. State and territory education authorities will receive funding up until December 2013 for activities that will better equip teachers and schools to provide optimum learning experiences for students with disabilities. Such activities might include the provision of coordinated specialised services by health and allied health professionals and the provision of specialised assistive technologies for use in classrooms such as hearing loops; additional hours of in-class support from paraprofessionals; and adapted curriculum tailored to the needs of each student based on latest research and expert advice. The Budget also provides $146.5 million in support for parents to access early interventions for children with a disability through the Better Start for Children with a Disability. This will help children access interventions facilitating speech development and better use of residual hearing, among other supports. To support this measure, a new Medicare item will provide for allied health interventions for children with a treatment plan in place. More detail on the measures is provided against the relevant recommendations. Some of the Committee’s recommendations are directed to state and territory governments and professional bodies. The Australian Government encourages those agencies to respond positively to the recommendations, and would welcome an opportunity to work cooperatively with them with the aim of ensuring that hearing impaired people are able to access a suite of coordinated services which meet their individual needs. The Government recognises that this Senate Committee report has captured a wide range of issues which will impact on the growing numbers of Australians with a hearing impairment. A number of the report recommendations have led to significant policy development and review activities, and the report is expected to continue to be relevant to future policy considerations. The Department of Health and Ageing has led the coordination of the whole of government response to the Senate Inquiry. Input to the response was provided by the departments of the Attorney General; Families, Housing. Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA); Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR); Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR); and Human Services (DHS) where recommendations relate to their respective portfolios. Government Response to Recommendations Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Ageing work with the appropriate agencies and authorities to devise recreational noise safety regulations for entertainment venues. Specifically, where music is expected to be louder than a recommended safe level, that the venues be required to: (a) post prominent notices warning patrons that the noise level at that venue may be loud enough to cause hearing damage; and (b) make ear plugs freely available to all patrons. Response: This is a matter for consideration by state/territory governments. Noise regulation is largely undertaken through state/territory environmental protection agencies which set standards, and police and local councils which enforce regulations. The Department of Health and Ageing will raise this matter with state and territory governments. Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations engage with state and territory jurisdictions, and with employment and hearing loss peak bodies, to develop a 10 year strategy to better support, engage and retain hearing impaired Australians in the workforce. The strategy should be made publicly available, and detail annual performance targets and the level of resources committed to achieving them. Response: The Australian Government accepts this recommendation. The National Disability Strategy (the Strategy), officially launched on Friday 18 March 2011, outlines a ten year national plan for improving the lives of people with disability, promoting participation, and creating a more inclusive society. The Strategy has been developed in partnership with state, territory and local governments and in consultation with people with disability, their families and carers, and other key stakeholders. The Strategy will guide public policy across governments and aims to bring about change in all mainstream services and programs as well as community infrastructure. This change is important to ensuring that people with disability, including those with hearing impairments, have the same opportunities as other Australians – a quality education, health care, a job where possible and access to buildings, transport and social activities. The Strategy identifies several areas for future action that have potential to improve employment opportunities for people with disability, including to: improve employer awareness of the benefits of employing people with disability; reduce barriers and disincentives for the employment of people with disability; encourage innovative approaches to employment for people with disability such as social enterprises, or initiatives to assist people with disability establish their own small business; and improve employment recruitment and retention of people with disability in all levels of public sector employment, and in funded organisations. In the first year of the Strategy, the focus will be on the development of an implementation plan that will include mainstream policy areas identified in the Strategy. Areas for future action will be prioritised collaboratively with state and territory governments, in consultation with people with disability and other key stakeholders. Recommendation 3 The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations engages with state and territory education systems, higher education providers of training for teachers of children with hearing impairment, and major stakeholders (including the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children and parent representative bodies), to develop and implement an agreed national qualification standard for teachers of children with hearing impairment. This standard is to be benchmarked against international best practice. Response: This is a matter for consideration by state/territory governments and universities. Australian universities are self-accrediting autonomous institutions and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations does not intervene in specific curriculum development issues. Any development of an agreed national qualification standard for teachers of children with hearing impairment should be undertaken between relevant teaching peak bodies, major stakeholders and higher education providers. Recommendation 4 The Committee recommends that eligibility for the Australian Government Hearing Services Program be extended to include all Australians, subject to eligibility and a means test. Recommendation 5 The Committee recommends that former child clients of Australian Hearing remain eligible for Australian Hearing support until the age of 25. This eligibility is to be subject to a means test. Former child clients of Australian Hearing who do not meet the means test are to have the option to access Australian Hearing support on a fee-for-service basis until the age of 25. Recommendation 12 The Committee recommends that the Office of Hearing Services review its policy with regard to the replacement of damaged, lost or obsolete cochlear implant speech processors for eligible clients over 21 years of age, and if possible align it with the replacement policy for eligible clients less than 21 years of age. Response: The Australian Government accepts in principle these recommendations. In the 2011-12 Budget, the Government announced a number of measures, totalling $47.7 million, which address some of these issues, including an extension to eligibility and improved service access for eligible clients under the Hearing Services Program (HSP). From 1 January 2012, eligibility for hearing services provided by the Australian Government provider Australian Hearing, under the Community Service Obligations (CSO) component of the HSP, will be extended to young adults aged 21 up to 26 years of age ( 21 to 25 years inclusive). This measure will allow hearing impaired young Australians continued access to free support, including hearing aid upgrades or replacements and maintenance, in line with the current policy for young adults under 21 years of age. It also includes an extension of access to those under 26 years of age for assistance with replacement of damaged, lost or obsolete cochlear implant speech processors. This will allow this group of young adults to complete their education or establish themselves in the workforce with a view to maintaining self-reliance in the longer term. Funding will be provided to enable increasing numbers of children and young people, eligible Indigenous people and adults with complex hearing to access services provided under the CSO. It is expected that over 39,600 children and young adults with hearing impairments, 11,500 Indigenous people and 18,400 adults with complex needs will receive services over the next four years. Recommendation 6 The Committee recommends that state and territory governments expand eligibility for Patient Assisted Travel Schemes to include support for accessing audiological services. Response: This is a matter for consideration by state/territory governments. While responsibility for the funding and administration for the accommodation and assis­tance schemes rests with state and territory governments, the Australian Government is currently working with them on the development of key policy principles and models for a nationally consistent scheme. Under national health reform, the Com­monwealth and states/territories are undertaking further work in regard to Patient Assistance Transport Schemes, with a view to higher and more consistent national standards. This builds on the National Healthcare Agreement, agreed in November 2008, which commits states and territories to provide and fund patient assistance travel schemes and ensure that public patients are aware of how to access the schemes. Under direction of the Australian Health Minister’s Advisory Council, officials from all jurisdictional health departments through the Rural Health Standing Committee (RHSC) are currently examining harmonisation options through the development of key policy principles and models for a nationally consistent scheme. The Australian Government is leading this work on behalf of the RHSC. Recommendation 7 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government provide funding to expand services for hearing impaired children in rural and remote areas through e-technology based programs such as that developed by the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children. Response: This is also a matter for consideration by state/territory governments. While responsibility for home based education and therapy support resides with state and territory governments, the 2011-12 Budget measure Better Start for Children with a Disability will complement existing state and territory services for children diagnosed with visual or hearing impairment, cerebral palsy, Down Syndrome and Fragile X syndrome. Financial support will be provided to enable parents to access early intervention therapies and treatment. Eligible children will receive access to up to $12,000 for therapy services, including speech pathology and audiology services, and an additional one off payment of $2,000 for families living in outer regional and remote areas where access to services is limited to assist with travel, home visit and similar expenses. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs also currently provides funding to the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children (RIDBC) to assist them to provide the RIDBC Teleschool program. Over the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 a total of $2,469,944 was provided for the Teleschool. Funding of $1,127,810 has been provided in 2009-11 under the Family Support Program’s Invest to Grow Activity. Funding will continue to be provided at this level. This funding has enabled RIDBC to expand its services throughout Australia. Recommendation 8 The Committee recommends that the Council of Australian Governments extends its commitment for universal newborn hearing screening to include hearing screening for all children on commencement of their first year of compulsory schooling. Given the crisis in ear health among Indigenous Australians, the Committee believes urgent priority should be given to hearing screenings and follow up for all Indigenous children from remote communities on commencement of school. Response: This is a matter for consideration by state/territory governments. While states/territories are responsible for delivering hearing screening services, the Australian Government will offer to work with them to identify opportunities for national collaboration to assist them to respond positively to the recommendation. The Australian Government contributes to hearing assessment for children through two items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS): The Health Assessment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People is available annually for all Indigenous people. When provided to an Indigenous child, the health assessment takes into consideration the results of any previous hearing screening including neonatal screening. It includes an ear examination and audiometry testing where indicated, particularly for those of school age. The Healthy Kids Check is available to children between 3 and 5 years of age and is an assessment of their physical health, general well-being and development to ensure they are healthy, fit and ready to learn when they start school. The Healthy Kids Check includes a physical examination and assessment of the patients’ hearing. Under the Healthy Start for Schools Initiative, commencing 1 July 2011, it will be a requirement that all children will have a health check, including hearing assessment, prior to starting school. These health and well being checks will be undertaken either through state health arrangements or through the Healthy Kids Check in the first year of implementation. The Australian Government has also announced the introduction of a health and well being check for three year olds, that will replace the current Healthy Kids Check. Advice on the activities to be undertaken as part of the health and well being check will be developed by a group of childhood health experts in 2011-12, with the check to be introduced by 2012-13 as part of the Healthy Start for Schools Initiative. Additional support will be provided through the Better Start for Children with a Disability Initiative. This will provide a Medicare rebate for the development of a treatment and management plan for children with disabilities under the age of 13 years. Eligible children with a treatment and management plan will also be able to access Medicare rebates for up to four allied health diagnostic services and up to 20 relevant allied health treatment services per child. Treatment items will be available for children up to the age of 15 provided a treatment and management plan is in place before 13 years of age. These rebates will commence with the start of the Initiative on 1 July 2011. Recommendation 9 The Committee recommends that the Audiological Society of Australia develop and make available to its members resources and professional development that promotes better understanding about the impact a diagnosis of hearing loss can have on people, and which provides resources and techniques for counselling and supporting people at the time of diagnosis. Response: This is a matter for consideration by the Audiological Society of Australia (ASA). Recommendation 10 The Committee recommends that education providers develop professional standards for interpreters working in educational environments. These standards should be based on existing standards, such as the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters paraprofessional level accreditation, or the National Auslan Interpreter Booking and Payment Services / Australian Sign Language Interpreter’s Association Deaf Relay Certification. Response: This is a matter for consideration by state/territory governments. The Australian Government appreciates the critical contribution Auslan interpreters and other education paraprofessionals make to supporting students with a hearing impairment. Developing rigorous professional standards specifying the skills and knowledge interpreters need could help to ensure an on-going supply of suitably trained staff. The states and territories employ school paraprofessionals and are best placed to partner with the deaf community in the development of professional standards to underpin interpreter training, performance management and professional development. Recommendation 11 The Committee recommends that the Office of Hearing Services engage with representatives of the hearing aid manufacturing and distribution industry, private providers of hearing health services, and hearing health consumers to investigate: (a) the relationship between the Voucher Program, top-ups and the financial viability of private health services; and (b) whether extending the capacity to audiologists to bulk bill Medicare directly for clinical services would have any impact on the financial viability of private health services (i.e. would it ameliorate the need to push ‘top-ups’ to stay viable?); and (c) that the findings of these investigations be made publicly available for the consideration of all hearing health stakeholders. Response: The Australian Government accepts in principle this recommendation. The Department of Health and Ageing will discuss these issues with key stakeholders. Under the Medicare Benefits Schedule, there are arrangements for audiologists to access some items for services delivered to clients in team care arrangements. Recommendation 13 The Committee recommends that the public counters in all government shopfronts be accessible to people with a hearing impairment through the provision of hearing loop technology. The Committee recommends that the Office of Hearing Services coordinate a project which sets targets toward that end for all government agencies, at all levels of government, and that these be publicly reported upon. Response: The Australian Government accepts in principle this recommendation. The Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 aim to achieve more consistent, systemic and widespread improve­ments in non-discriminatory access for people with a disability to publicly accessible buildings. The Premises Standards commenced from 1 May 2011 to coincide with the adoption of corres­ponding changes to the Building Code of Australia in each state and territory. In new buildings and in existing buildings where building work is undertaken in reception areas, the Premises Standards require a hearing augmentation system, which can include an induction loop, to be provided at reception areas with an in-built amplification system if the public is screened from the service provider. Commonwealth government shopfronts have commenced implementing strategies to comply with the Premises Standards. For example, Medicare Australia has installed assistive listening devices at several shopfronts in most states and territories. These systems are designed for people with a hearing impairment, whether they use a hearing device or not. Centrelink’s Disability Action Plan 2010-2013 includes a commitment to 100 percent of Centrelink premises and service delivery outlets comply with Australian Standards and the Building Code of Australia. Recommendation 14 The Committee recommends that the national data set and register for neonatal hearing screening, currently under development by the Neonatal Hearing Screening Working Group on behalf of the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council, be expanded to include a national database which can: (a) track children through neonatal hearing screening, diagnosis and intervention; and (b) record and report cognitive, linguistic, social and emotional development outcomes of children diagnosed at birth with a hearing loss; and (c) be expanded in future years to track all children diagnosed with a hearing impairment later in life. Response: This is a matter for consideration by state/territory governments. While the delivery of screening services is a state/territories responsibility, the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council auspiced Working Group, established in 2009, is currently discussing potential models for a national dataset and registry function. Implementation of a dataset and registry function would need to be considered by the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference. Recommendation 15 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government fund the National Acoustic Laboratories to undertake longitudinal research into the long-term impacts of recreational noise, particularly exposure to personal music players. Recommendation 16 The Committee recommends that Australian Governments continue to prioritise and fund research into occupational noise exposure. The focus of research should be informed by the results of the ‘Getting heard: effective prevention of hazardous occupational noise’ project, currently being undertaken by Safe Work Australia, and include investigation into the effectiveness of current legislation in limiting occupational noise exposure. Research should continue to develop understanding about the design of workplace equipment, hearing protection, and the long-term effects of acoustic shock and acoustic trauma. Recommendation 17 The Committee recommends that Australian Governments prioritise and fund research into the reasons for the under use of hearing aids, and develop practicable strategies for hearing health practitioners to help overcome the under use in the community. Recommendation 18 The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Ageing work closely with Safe Work Australia to investigate the relationships between ototoxic substances and hearing impairment, and the possible implications for workplace safety practices. Recommendation 19 The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Ageing works with Meniere’s Australia to identify opportunities for research into the prevalence of Meniere’s disease in Australia, rates of diagnosis, options for treatment and personal management, and the socio-economic impact of the disease, including on the employment and lifestyles of those affected. Response: The Australian Government accepts in principle this recommendation. Through the 2011-12 Budget, the Australian Government has provided additional funds for research into the underuse of hearing aids. The Government will consider the proposed areas of research and take these into account in prioritising allocation of future research funding. In addition, the Department of Health and Ageing will work with Meniere’s Australia to identify potential opportunities for further research. Currently the Australian Government supports research into hearing loss prevention through a number of mechanisms including the Hearing Loss Prevention Program ($7 million is available from 2010-11 until 2012-13) and funding for the National Acoustic Laboratories through Com­munity Service Obligations’ funding arrange­ments. Under the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program, administered by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, the Government is providing $32.55 million over seven years to the HEARing CRC (commencing 1 July 2007 until 30 June 2014). One of the research projects supported by the Centre aims to determine the barriers to noise exposure reduction and the sources and profiles of noise exposure (www.hearingcrc.org). Additionally, there is continued Australian Government support for research into occupational noise exposure through the competitive funding schemes of various research funding agencies, including the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Recommendation 20 The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Ageing provides funding for Australian Hearing to develop, in close consultation with major stakeholders, a national hearing health awareness and prevention education campaign. This campaign should have three dimensions. It should: (a) target those at high risk of acquired hearing loss (including employers and employees in high risk industries, farmers and rural workers, and young people) to improve their knowledge about hearing health and change risky behaviours; (b) raise the level of awareness about hearing health issues among the broader Australian population to help de-stigmatise hearing loss; and (c) promote access to support services for people who are hearing impaired. Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Public health campaigns are also a matter for consideration by state and territory governments. Australian Hearing is one of many service providers under the Australian Government’s HSP. The Department of Health and Ageing will discuss the proposal for an awareness raising campaign with the states and territories and will explore whether there is an appropriate role for HSP providers in such a campaign. As part of the ear health component of the Improving Eye and Ear Health Services for Indigenous Australians for Better Education and Employment Outcomes measure, the Department of Health and Ageing is implementing a national social marketing communications project which aims to increase awareness of ear disease and to highlight the importance of seeking and following treatment to prevent hearing loss in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s). The National Indigenous Ear Health Campaign will primarily target Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mothers and female carers, especially those with children under five years of age, as well as intermediaries such as health care workers and teachers. Administered funding of $9.57 million was allocated to the campaign, which will be implemented from 2009-2013. Recommendation 21 The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and Department of Health and Ageing jointly establish a taskforce to work across portfolios and jurisdictions on a plan to systematically and sustainably address the educational needs of hearing impaired Indigenous Australian children. Response: The Australian Government accepts this recommendation. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the Department of Health and Ageing welcome and support the opportunity to work together and with other agencies to address the educational needs of hearing impaired Indigenous Australian children. Dialogue between these departments has already commenced, to discuss possible points of common interest around implementation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan (the Plan). The Plan, sets out a five year strategy across six domains of action to make substantial inroads into closing the education gaps for Indigenous children. One of the actions in the Plan notes that: The Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs will seek support from the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference and Community and Disability Services Ministers’ Conference to strengthen connections between schools and health, welfare, family support and youth and community services at local and systemic levels. Consideration will also be given to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students with disabilities. Supporting children with hearing difficulties was one of several areas of interest discussed in this context, and this important area is currently being examined by Commonwealth, state and territory officials in the course of implementing the Plan. Recommendation 22 The Committee recommends that Australian Hearing be enabled under the Australian Hearing Services Act 1991 to supply and maintain sound field systems in all new classrooms, and in all existing classrooms where there is a significant proportion of Indigenous children. Recommendation 23 The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Ageing work with the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to develop a program with Australian Hearing to: (a) supply and maintain sound field amplification systems and acoustic conditioning in all new classrooms where there is a significant population of Indigenous children; and (b) report publicly on where the sound field amplification systems and acoustic conditioning are installed to assist parents in making informed choices about schools for their children. Response: This is a matter for consideration by state/territory governments. While the primary responsibility for supplying and maintaining sound field amplification systems in schools rests with the states and territories, the Australian Government has recently undertaken a cross sectoral project in Western Australia. Acknowledging the links between hearing and early literacy acquisition, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations provided funding of $1.3 million to support the Kimberley Sound Amplification Project. This cross sectoral project provided sound amplification equipment in all classrooms in Kimberley schools in the Government, Catholic and independent sectors. The project is a response to evidence that on any one day in a Kimberley classroom, up to 65 percent of Aboriginal students can experience intermittent hearing loss. Under the Smarter Schools and Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory National Partner­ships, funding provided has supported the Northern Territory Department of Education to install Sound Field Systems in targeted remote schools. In addition, it has enabled the provision of enhanced services and support for students with conductive hearing loss to 37 targeted remote schools. The Department of Health and Ageing, the Department of Human Services and Australian Hearing have a role to play in supporting the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations in the development of any standards and types of sound systems best suited to the needs of children particularly in Indigenous communities. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will also work with the relevant education providers in the states and territories, so that together, governments and education providers can systematically and sustainably address the educational needs of hearing impaired Indigenous Australian children. Recommendation 24 The Committee recommends that education providers ensure that teacher induction programs for teachers posted to schools in Indigenous communities emphasise the likelihood that hearing impairment among their students will be very high. Induction programs for these teachers must include training on the effects of hearing health on education, and effective, evidence-based teaching strategies to manage classrooms where a majority of children are hearing impaired. Response: This is a matter for consideration by state/territory governments. The Australian Government notes the importance of supporting teachers and special training needs for those teachers deployed to Indigenous communities. While the primary responsibility for teacher recruitment, including induction and professional development of teachers, is the responsibility of the states and territories and the relevant education providers, the Government supports working with jurisdictions to ensure the best outcomes for Indigenous students. Recommendation 25 The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations work with jurisdictions to develop accredited professional development programs for teachers and school leaders on the effects of hearing health on education, and effective evidence-based teaching strategies to manage classrooms with hearing impaired children. Response: The Australian Government accepts in principle this recommendation. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations supports working in partnership with jurisdictions to ensure all teachers are equipped with evidence based teaching strategies and professional learning to support the needs of all students. Under the Smarter Schools - Improving Teacher Quality National Partnership, the Australian Government has committed $550 million to support reforms to drive a high performing, quality education workforce. A key element of this Partnership involves the sharing of best practice, materials and resources between jurisdictions and establishing a framework to guide professional learning for principals, teachers and school leaders. In consultation with jurisdictions, the department supports developing accredited professional development on the effects of hearing health and education. As an example, under the Smarter Schools and Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory National Partnerships, the Northern Territory Department of Education and Training is providing enhanced services and support for students with conductive hearing loss. To date, 37 targeted remote schools have accessed services such as professional learning programs for classroom teachers, special education teachers and assistant teachers. The More Support for Students with Disabilities initiative was launched on 3 May 2011 and runs until December 2013 with the aim of providing immediate intensified, targeted assistance to teachers and schools to support students with disabilities, including the hearing impaired. This initiative will support building the knowledge and capacity of teachers of hearing impaired students. It will enable education authorities to assist schools and their staff to access tailored expert advice to learn skills and strategies to improve the education of students with disabilities. Recommendation 26 The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Ageing make the changes to Medicare necessary to enable specialists and practitioners to receive public funding support for ear health services provided remotely via ear telehealth. Response: The Australian Government accepts this recommendation. Under the Connecting Health Services with the Future: Modernising Medicare by Providing Rebates for Online Consultations telehealth initiative announced after the 2010-11 Budget, the Government has committed $352.2 million to provide, from 1 July 2011, Medicare rebates for consultations conducted via video conferencing across a range of specialties. This is likely to be of particular benefit (though not limited) to patients of consultant physicians, surgeons (including ear, nose and throat specialists) and psychiatrists. Financial incentives will also be available to encourage uptake of online consultations, and funding will be available to train health professionals in online technologies. In addition, $50 million will be provided for expansion of the GP After Hours Helpline to include online services, from 1 July 2012. Recommendation 27 The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Ageing work closely with state and territory jurisdictions to develop and implement a national plan which: (a) provides resources to conduct hearing assessments for all Australians serving custodial sentences who have never received such an assessment, including youths in juvenile detention; and (b) facilitates prisoner access to those hearing assessments; and (c) encourages a high level of participation in those hearing assessments; and (d) makes the findings of the hearing assessments available to the public (within privacy considerations). Response: The Australian Government accepts in principle this recommendation. States and territories have responsibility for both the management and operation of prisons and juvenile justice centres and screening for hearing impairment. The Australian Government will bring this recommendation to the attention of the state and territory governments. The Australian Government is committed to supporting the delivery of initiatives and services to hearing impaired Australians, including those in custodial settings. A person who already has a hearing problem diagnosed, and is already in receipt of Commonwealth funded hearing service at the time they become incarcerated, may continue to receive Commonwealth funded hearing services during the period of incarceration, provided that the prisoner initiates the provision of those services. Any medical attention leading to the diagnosis of a hearing problem, or provision of hearing services which is initiated by a custodial authority, or carried out on behalf of a custodial authority, must be funded by the relevant state or territory. Recommendation 28 The Committee recommends that the relevant ombudsman in each state and territory conduct an audit of Australians serving custodial sentences, including youths in juvenile detention, and consider whether undiagnosed hearing impairment may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice and led to any unsafe convictions. Response: This is a matter for consideration by state/territory governments. States and territories have responsibility for the management and operation of prisons and juvenile justice centres. The Australian Government will bring this recommendation to the attention of the state and territory governments. Recommendation 29 The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Ageing: (a) provide funding and resources to manage a national biennial Indigenous ear health conference; and (b) make the outcomes of those conferences publicly available to assist researchers and practitioners in the field of hearing health. Response: The Government accepts this recommendation. The Department of Health and Ageing will provide funding to support resources for a national Indigenous ear health conference. Preliminary discussions have been held with potential organisers with a view to holding the conference in the second half of 2011. Recommendation 30 The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Ageing work with state and territory health agencies to provide funding to support the continuation, promotion and expansion of the Ear Health Infonet. Response: The Australian Government accepts this recommendation. The Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet has been funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Health and Ageing since it was established in 1997. $491,266 (GST inclusive) is being provided to Edith Cowan University for the expansion of EarInfoNet over three years from 2010-2011 to 2012-2013. Recommendation 31 The Committee recommends that guidelines for police interrogation of Indigenous Australians in each state and territory be amended to include a requirement that a hearing assessment be conducted on any Indigenous person who is having communication difficulties, irrespective of whether police officers consider that the communication difficulties are arising from language and cross-cultural issues. Response: This is a matter for consideration by state/territory governments. In endorsing the National Indigenous Law and Justice Framework, all Australian Governments have committed to the goal of improving all justice systems so that they comprehensively deliver on the justice needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in a fair and equitable manner. Guidelines for police interrogation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are matters for each jurisdiction. The Australian Government will bring this recommendation to the attention of the state and territory governments. Recommendation 32 The Committee recommends that the National Judicial College of Australia work with state and territory jurisdictions to develop and deliver accredited professional development programs for judges, lawyers, correctional officers, and court officials on the effects of hearing impairment on Indigenous engagement with the criminal justice system, and effective evidence-based techniques for engaging effectively with people with a hearing impairment in courtroom environments. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA) is one of a number of bodies which provide programs and professional development resources to judicial officers in Australia. Other judicial education bodies include the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, the Judicial Commission of NSW and the Judicial College of Victoria. The issue of hearing impairment has been dealt with in past sessions on disability awareness conducted by the NJCA and other judicial education bodies. The Attorney-General’s Department has referred the recommendation to the NJCA for consideration of how hearing impairment issues can be raised in other NJCA programs. The provision of professional development programs for lawyers is a matter for state and territory Law Society and Bar Associations. The Attorney-General’s Department will ensure that this recommendation is brought to their attention. The Attorney-General’s Department has referred the recommendation to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in relation to professional development programs for AFP officers. All Australian governments endorsed the National Indigenous Law and Justice Framework in November 2009. The Framework, developed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, provides a comprehensive approach to preventing and reducing contact by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the criminal justice system and outlines a number of strategies and actions that jurisdictions could consider to address specific issues. The provision of culturally competent training for people in all areas of the justice system is a key strategy. Recommendation 33 The Committee recommends that hearing loops are available in interview rooms and public counters of all police stations, and in all courtrooms, and that loop receiver devices be made available for people without hearing aids. Response: The Government notes this recommendation, which is also a matter for consideration by state and territory governments. In responding to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Report, Access All Areas, the Government agreed to consider the development of disability standards in relation to building fit out. This consideration may include the provision of hearing augmentation systems in some public buildings, including police stations. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) currently uses accredited sign language translators to assist in taking witness statements from victims and conducting records of interview with suspects where these individuals have hearing difficulties. This is covered by AFP guidance materials and is done to ensure compliance with relevant legislation. The use of hearing loops in a police station could be problematic. For example, if an officer was conducting a taped record of interview with a person in an interview room, it is possible that the conversation could be radiated outside the interview room and picked up by someone else, creating a breach of privacy. ACT Policing, a business unit of the AFP, currently has a 'deaf' phone in operation in the Police Operations room. This phone translates recorded messages into typed messages that are printed on a device attached to the phone (a teleprinter). Arrangements for other police stations are the responsibility of the states and territories. The Australian Government will bring this recommendation to the attention of the state and territory governments. Recommendation 34 The Committee recommends that correctional facilities in which greater than 10 percent of the population is Indigenous review their facilities and practices, and improve them so that the needs of hearing impaired prisoners are met. Response: This is a matter for consideration by state/territory governments. States and territories have responsibility for the management and operation of prisons and juvenile justice centres. The Australian Government will bring this recommendation to the attention of the state and territory govern­ments. The states and territories deliver corrective services in accordance with the Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia, which comprise a uniform set of principles that are used by the jurisdictions in developing their own relevant legislative, policy and performance standards on correctional practice. The Guidelines prescribe that prisoners should be managed fairly and openly without discrimination on grounds, including physical or mental impairment. The Guidelines specify that all prisoners should be inducted into the prison by undergoing a formal reception process that provides key information on the prison regime. This information should be presented in a linguistic and culturally relevant form, using interpreters where necessary. Prisoners should also be screened upon admission to enable the prison management to make an initial health and psychological assessment in order to identify and provide appropriate intervention for any pressing medical or welfare concerns. The Guidelines provide that, when being classified or placed, prison staff should consider prisoners’ individual needs in regard to health and or disability. Prisoners should be appropriately managed according to their individual needs in regard to health, any intellectual disability, cultural or linguistic issues. Government interim response to the Senate Economics References Committee report, The regulation, registration and remuneration of insolvency practitioners in Australia: the case for a new framework Recommendations Government Response Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that the corporate insolvency arm of ASIC be transferred to ITSA to form the Australian Insolvency Practitioners Authority (AIPA). The agency should be governed by the Financial Management and Accountability Act under the Attorney General's portfolio. The Memorandum of Understanding between ASIC and ITSA should be updated to ensure that ASIC provides to the new agency adequate resources and the expertise needed to support the oversight of corporate insolvency sector. Not accepted. A new single regulator is not required in order to address the concerns of the Senate Committee in relation to ASIC’s role in regulating the corporate insolvency industry There would be major upfront costs of merging the regulators, which may not necessarily be offset by long-term savings. The extent to which simply unifying the regulator will result in an improved regulatory environment is not clear. Separate policy considerations apply to many aspects of personal and corporate insolvencies and there is not currently sufficient evidence that a one-size-fits-all approach for all issues would necessarily optimise outcomes for stakeholders. The removal of the responsibility for regulation of corporate insolvency from the corporate regulator would be expected to result in corporate insolvency losing its important connections with other parts of ASIC, for example in relation to major corporate administrations, regulation of insolvent trading and of director and corporate misconduct that may have been engaged in leading up to, or during, an insolvency event. Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the government commission the Australian Law Reform Commission to inquire into the opportunities to harmonise Australia's personal insolvency and corporate insolvency legislation. The Commission must report to the government within 12 months of the tabling of this report. Noted. The Government agrees that there should be greater consistency between the personal and corporate insolvency systems but does not consider it necessary to commission the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) to undertake an inquiry at this time. Significant work is already being progressed by relevant government agencies to identify areas for greater harmonisation. An ALRC inquiry may duplicate or delay the progress of this work. The Government will facilitate the closer alignment of the personal and corporate insolvency laws through its options paper on regulatory reform options for the registration, regulation, and remuneration of participants of the corporate and personal insolvency industries. Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that a 'flying squad' be established within the new insolvency regulator. The unit should be responsible for conducting investigations of a sample of insolvency practitioners, some selected at random, others with the aid of a risk profiling system and market intelligence. Noted. The Government has released an options paper outlining regulatory reform options for the registration, regulation, and remuneration of participants of the corporate insolvency industry on 2 June 2011. Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that section 213 of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 be replaced with the following: All hearings, evidence and reasons shall be heard or given in open session unless otherwise ordered by a judge of a Court of any State or Territory or the Federal Court of Australia who may, at any time during or after the hearing of a proceeding in the Court, make such order forbidding or restricting the publication of particular evidence, or the name of a party or witness, as appears to the Court to be necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice or the security of the Commonwealth. Subject to section 216(2), any past hearings, evidence and/or reasons shall be open to inspection by any person, and a register of past matters with the names of parties shall be published and made available for inspection by the public by means of the internet. Recommendation 5 The committee recommends that the new Insolvency Practitioners Authority establish a licensing system for corporate insolvency practitioners similar to the system currently used by ITSA. Practitioners should be required to renew their license every three years. The new regulator should have the power to suspend a practitioner's license if they are not adequately insured or if a matter referred to the CALDB is of sufficient concern as to warrant suspension. Recommendation 6 The committee recommends that as part of the licensing and re-licensing processes, all corporate insolvency practitioners are required to pay a licensing fee. Recommendation 7 The committee recommends that it be a condition of a practitioner's first license renewal (ie: after three years of registration) that he or she has completed the IPAA's Insolvency Education Program. Recommendation 8 The committee recommends that the new Australian Insolvency Practitioners Authority set and administer a 'closed book' written examination. The passing of this examination should be a pre-requisite for gaining a license as a corporate insolvency practitioner. Recommendation 9 The committee recommends that the new Australian Insolvency Practitioners Authority convene an eight person advisory panel to devise a written examination. The panel should be chaired by the Chairman of the Authority and should also include: * a representative from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia; * a representative from the Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPAA); * an insolvency practitioner nominated by the IPAA; * two academic experts on insolvency law chosen by the Authority; * a person nominated by the Australian Bankers' Association; * a person nominated by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia; and * a person nominated by a consumer advocacy group. Recommendation 10 The committee recommends that the new insolvency regulator work with the insurance industry to ensure that insurance companies notify the regulator if a practitioner's insurance lapses or expires. In these cases, the regulator should contact the practitioner immediately and allow the practitioner 14 days to acquire the policy. If this is not done, the regulator must suspend the practitioner's license. The regulator should sight the insurance documents of practitioners as part of its 'flying squad' activities. Recommendation 11 The committee recommends that the Corporations Act 2001 be amended to impose a penalty on registered insolvency practitioners who operate without PI insurance. Recommendation 12 The committee recommends that the major accountancy bodies—the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia, CPA Australia and the National Institute of Accountants—establish a fidelity fund to ensure that creditors are insured for fraud and wrongdoing. Recommendation 13 The committee recommends that section 1282(2)(a)(i) of the Corporations Act is amended to read: …is an Australian Legal Practitioner holding a current practising certificate with at least five years' post admission experience as a practising commercial lawyer; and / or …holds a Masters of Business Administration with at least five years' commercial experience. Recommendation 14 The committee recommends that as part of the proposed licensing system, the insolvency regulator can suspend a liquidator's license if they believe overcharging has occurred. Recommendation 15 The committee recommends that section 503 of the Corporations Act 2001 be amended to insert the following provision: For purposes of this section, cause shown includes: (a) A vote of no confidence by a majority of creditors; (b) Where it appears time based charging of the incumbent liquidator has not or will not result in a reasonable cost-benefit analysis for the company. Recommendation 16 The committee recommends that the new insolvency regulator work with the IPAA and the Institute of Chartered Accountants to ensure that insolvency practitioners comply with the remuneration report template set out in the IPAA Code of Professional Practice. Recommendation 17 The committee recommends that within the new Insolvency Practitioners Authority, there is a unit established that is responsible for gathering, collating and analysing data on a range of corporate and personal insolvency matters. The data must be made publicly available in the Authority's Annual Report and online. There should be no charge for accessing these data. Ordered that the committee reports be printed.