Furner, Sen Mark (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Furner ) (16:51): Pursuant to standing orders, I present documents listed on today’s Order of Business at item 15 which were presented to the President, the Deputy President and temporary chairs of committees after the Senate adjourned on 28 June 2012. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised. Documents presented out of sitting (a) Committee reports 1. Community Affairs Legislation Committee––Report––Budget estimates 2012-13––Corrigendum (received 11July2012) 2. Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee––Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––The shortage of engineering and related employment skills (received 12 July 2012) 3. Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee––Reports––Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Bill 2012 and the Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Bill 2012— Interim (received 13July2012) Final, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee (received 2August2012) 4. Community Affairs Legislation Committee––Report––Administration of Indigenous Business Australia in relation to certain evidence given to the Senate Community Affairs Committee (received 3August2012) (b) Government responses to parliamentary committee reports 1. Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee––Report––Animal welfare standards in Australia's live export markets and the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] and Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] (received 10July2012) 2. Economics References Committee––Report––Investing for good: The development of a capital market for the not-for-profit sector in Australia (received 19July2012) 3. Economics References Committee––Report––The asset insurance arrangements of Australian state governments: State government insurance and the flood levy [inquiry into the provisions of the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood and Cyclone Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood and Cyclone Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011] (received19July2012) 4. Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit––426th report––Ninth biannual hearing with the Commissioner of Taxation (received24July2012) 5. Finance and Public Administration References Committee––Report––The Government's administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (received26July2012) 6. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee––Report––Australia's biosecurity and quarantine arrangements (received27July2012) 7. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee––Report––Torres Strait: Bridge and Border (presented to President, on 9 August 2012, 11.55 am). 8. Joint Standing Committee on Treaties––Report––Report 100–Treaties tabled on 25 June 2008 (2): Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (received 9August2012) 9. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee––Report––Donor conception practices in Australia (received 9August2012) (c ) Government documents 1. Australian National Maritime Museum––Strategic plan 2012-2015 (received2July2012 2. Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997––Report for 2010-11 in relation to compliance with the statutory funding agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited (Livecorp) (received13July2012) 3. Gene Technology Regulator––Quarterly report for the period 1 January to 31 March 2012 (received19July2012 4. Australian Human Rights Commission––Report––Inquiry into the treatment of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who say that they are children: An age of uncertainty (received27July2012) 5. Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012––Replacement revised explanatory memorandum (received2August2012) (d ) Return to order Law and Justice—Murray Darling Basin Draft Plan––Legal advice––Statement (motion of Senator Hanson-Young agreed to 19 June 2012) (received 18July2012) Statements of compliance with Senate orders Indexed lists of departmental and agency files (continuing order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended on 3 December 1998): Lists of contracts (continuing order of the Senate of 20 June 2001, as amended on 27 September 2001 and 18 June, 26 June and 4 December 2003): Lists of departmental and agency appointments and vacancies (continuing order of the Senate of 24 June 2008, as amended): Lists of departmental and agency grants (continuing order of the Senate of 24 June 2008): The ACTING 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 responses read as follows— AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE SENATE RURAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT REFERENCES COMMITTEE Inquiry: Animal welfare standards in Australia's live export markets Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 (No. 2) Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 (No 2) July 2012 Government Response to Senate Inquiry – Animal welfare standards in Australia's live export markets and Live Animal Export Bills The Australian Government has worked closely with the livestock industry, state and territory governments, and animal welfare groups to develop a robust framework to ensure animal welfare outcomes in the livestock export trade. This consultation, as well as extensive engagement with trading partners, has led to significant supply chain reform through the development of a new regulatory framework. The goal is to ensure that by the end of 2012, all Australian livestock exported for slaughter will be treated at or above internationally accepted animal welfare standards. On 21 October 2011, the Australian Government announced it was extending the supply chain assurance framework developed for Indonesia to cover all markets for Australian feeder and slaughter livestock exports. The new framework requires exporters to demonstrate they have a supply chain assurance system that delivers: - internationally agreed welfare requirements (World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)) - control over the movement of animals through the supply chain to point of slaughter - tracking/accountability of animals throughout the supply chain - independent auditing and reporting to government. The Government's approach was informed by the recommendations of the Independent Review of Australia's Livestock Export Trade (the Farmer Review) and the Industry-Government Working Group reports on Live Cattle Exports and on Live Sheep and Goat Exports. These reports recommended adapting and implementing a supply chain assurance framework for all markets for the export of Australian livestock, as well as addressing a number of domestic welfare issues. The implementation of these recommendations will require continued consultation with stakeholders. The Government is committed to facilitating the implementation of these changes. It will make $5 million available to support exporters to deliver improved supply chains. This funding will be available on a 3:1 investment ratio. The guidelines for this program are available at http://daff.gov.au/about/current-grants. A further allocation of $10 million from the Official Development Assistance (ODA) contingency reserve will be made available to eligible countries that import Australian livestock in order to improve animal welfare outcomes. The Government will encourage the use of stunning in livestock export supply chains through the following measures: - pursuing, where possible, bilateral agreements with our trading partners that include stunning - promoting the use of stunning, including through work instructions, improved processes and stunning training through regional OIE forums - supporting industry efforts to develop and implement voluntary codes of conduct that raise standards above OIE and that include stunning - raising the inclusion of stunning in the OIE guidelines through the formal OIE process  funding animal welfare improvements in export markets with support from Australian industry. Domestically, the Government has also committed to: - as a priority, enhance the system of exporters contracting Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) accredited veterinarians (AAV), including training processes - review the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) by 28 February 2013 - work with states and territories to articulate respective roles, encourage them to incorporate welfare standards in legislation, and seek their agreement to implement unique individual animal identification of all cattle, sheep and goats as soon as practical - encourage industry to implement a through-chain quality management system - have the Australian Maritime Safety Authority review shipping standards and carriage of livestock within the next 6 months. A final report on the effectiveness of the reforms will be provided to Parliament in 2014. The Government decision on livestock export reform largely addresses the recommendations of the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee on animal welfare standards in Australia's live export markets. The following is the Government's detailed response to each recommendation. Government Response Recommendation 1 2.53 The committee recommends that the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No.2] and the Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 [No.2] not be passed. The Government agrees with the recommendation. The Government is committed to supporting the continuation of the livestock export trade and will, therefore, not be supporting the passage of the bill. Recommendation 2 4.70 The committee recommends that Meat and Livestock Australia and LiveCorp ensure that performance standards, in accordance with Article 7.5.2.1.g of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Code, are developed and implemented for the Mark IV restraint box as a matter of priority. The Government agrees in principle with the recommendation, but notes it is targeted specifically at industry to develop and implement. The requirements of the new livestock export trade regulatory framework will ensure industry meets OIE standards for animal welfare but are not prescriptive in their approach. Recommendation 3 4.71 The committee recommends that the Chief Veterinary Officer oversees the regular assessment of the performance standards for the Mark IV restraint box, the effectiveness of their implementation and the associated impact on animal welfare outcomes. The Government disagrees with the recommendation. The requirements of the new livestock export trade regulatory framework will ensure industry meets OIE standards for animal welfare but are not prescriptive in their approach. The Government acknowledges that assessment of performance standards and the effectiveness of their implementation may be a useful recommendation for industry to consider. The Government also acknowledges that the Chief Veterinary Officer may be called upon to review aspects of supply chains, including Mark IV boxes, as needed. Recommendation 4 4.76 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with the Australian live export industry and key peak animal welfare groups, clarifies the range of information relating to compliance with the supply chain assurance system that will be made public, the form in which this information will be published and the frequency with which it will be published. The Government agrees with the recommendation. On 26 August 2011, the Industry Government Working Groups (IGWG) on Live Cattle Exports and on Live Sheep and Goat Exports reported to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in relation to the development and implementation of a new livestock export supply chain regulatory framework for live cattle/buffalo and sheep/goat markets. These reports (at http://liveexports.gov.au/news#reports) recommended that the independent audit reports be published, taking into account commercial sensitivities. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) has defined a list of audit information considered necessary to adequately meet the Government's publication objective. This information has been provided to stakeholders and is available on the DAFF website. Recommendation 5 4.79 The committee recommends that the Australian Government continues to work with the Australian livestock industry toward the implementation of a mandatory national permanent livestock traceability system. The Government agrees with the recommendation. The Government expects to continue to work closely with industry through the Primary Industries Standing Committee in the development of a mandatory national traceability system for livestock. Recommendation 6 6.17 The committee recommends that the Australian live export industry undertake a review of the responsibilities of peak bodies that act and speak on behalf of the industry with a view to clarifying the lines of authority and communication within industry. The Government agrees in principle with the recommendation. The Government supports the clarification of lines of authority and communication within peak industry bodies. Recommendation 7 6.31 The committee recommends that the Australian Government establishes an ongoing dialogue with the governments of each of our live export trading partners and ensures that agreements reached as a result of this dialogue are clearly communicated to Australian Government officials and Australian industry representatives. The Government agrees in principle with the recommendation. A key element of the announced reforms is that Australian exporters have the responsibility to put in place the new arrangements. It is the exporter's responsibility to work with industry in importing countries to develop supply chains that meet the new standards. The Government recognises the importance of engaging the governments of our trading partners to seek their support for the reforms. An active program of engagement is underway with the governments of our trading partners. This has included representations by relevant ministers and senior government officials, including visits, discussions and correspondence. The Government will continue to engage with our trading partners as the new reforms are implemented. To ensure effective implementation of the new arrangements, the Government will continue to work closely with the livestock export industry and state and territory governments through the Industry–Government Implementation Group on livestock export reforms and the Standing Council on Primary Industries. Recommendation 8 6.45 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with the live export industry and other ancillary businesses develops a package of further assistance or reallocates existing packages of assistance to address those identifiable and otherwise irrevocable financial costs incurred as a result of the temporary suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia. Noted. The Government has already provided a range of assistance measures to support affected pastoralists and businesses; and considers that these measures were sufficient. The Government made available: - an Income Recovery Subsidy on 27 June 2011, comprising 13 weeks of income support (applications closed 5 September 2011) - a Business Assistance Package on 30 June 2011, comprising a Business Assistance Payment of $5000 (applications closed 30 September 2011) - a Business Hardship Payment of up to $20 000 (applications closed 30 September 2011) – grants of $5500 for the obtaining of financial advice (applications closed 31 December 2011) - a Subsidised Interest Rate Scheme providing a subsidy of up to $36 000 on business loans of $300 000 over two years (applications closed 10 February 2012). Existing government assistance programs available to support those affected by the suspension included: - Rural Financial Counselling Services available to primary producers and small rural businesses suffering financial difficulties - On 1 July 2011, a rural financial counsellor was located in the Northern Territory for six months to assist producers and businesses to apply for assistance and support their planning and decision-making processes. - support to Indigenous business owners, depending on individual business needs, to access wage subsidies and training for Indigenous employees; mentoring support; assistance to identify new and emerging markets; re-phase business and risk plans; and access mainstream support - the government extended priority assistance through Job Services Australia to employees who had been made redundant from eligible companies affected by the temporary suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia. Recommendation 9 6.47 The committee recommends that the Australian Government establishes a dialogue with financial institutions with regard to the financial difficulties faced by producers and businesses involved in the live export industry as a result of the temporary suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia. The committee recommends that the Australian Government seeks to encourage financial institutions to adopt a supportive approach to the repayment of loans and the imposition of interest penalties in the event of default on such payments. Noted. The Government agrees that dialogue with financial institutions is important and has already undertaken a number of actions in this regard. In July 2011, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry commissioned Hydros Consulting to report on the financial impact of the cattle export restrictions on producers and service businesses in northern Australia. On 10 August 2011, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry hosted an initial teleconference with key financial institutions on the development of the Subsidised Interest Rate Scheme, with follow-up discussions held by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. In developing the framework of the Subsidised Interest Rate, the department also consulted the Western Australian, Queensland and Northern Territory governments. The Agricultural Finance Forum, comprising members from the financial services sector, agri-political organisations and government, meets on a six monthly basis for the purpose of improving communication between the rural sector, government and financial institutions on major public policy issues. Australian Greens – Dissenting Report Recommendation 1 1.25 The Greens recommend that the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No.2] be passed. The Government disagrees with the recommendation. The Government is committed to supporting the continuation of the livestock export trade while ensuring the welfare of Australian animals and will, therefore, not be supporting the passage of the bill. Recommendation 2 1.26 Pre-slaughter stunning should be mandatory at all abattoirs where Australian livestock is slaughtered. The Government disagrees with the recommendation. Imposing a mandatory requirement of pre-slaughter stunning for Australian livestock in overseas markets would be, prima facie, inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and would also be unacceptable to a number of key trading partners. The Australian Government's current approach under a new regulatory framework for livestock exports for feeder and slaughter purposes is to require exporters to ensure that animals are handled and slaughtered in accordance with international World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) animal welfare requirements. The OIE does not mandate stunning of animals prior to slaughter. OIE standards cover the whole slaughter process and if followed substantially reduce welfare compromise in livestock, particularly before and during non-stun slaughter. Included in the livestock export reforms announced by the Government on 21 October 2011, the use of stunning will be encouraged in all livestock export trade for feeder and slaughter purposes through the following measures: - pursuing, where possible, bilateral agreements with our trading partners that include stunning - promoting the use of stunning including through work instructions, improved processes and stunning training through regional OIE forums - supporting industry efforts to develop and implement voluntary codes of conduct that raise standards above the OIE and that include stunning - raising the inclusion of stunning in the OIE guidelines through the formal OIE process - funding animal welfare improvements in trading partners with support from Australian industry. The majority of animals in Australia are stunned prior to slaughter. Where this does not occur, for religious reasons, there is a strict quality management system ensuring that animals do not suffer unnecessarily. Support of state and territory governments would be required for the Australian Government to pass legislation to require mandatory stunning for domestic slaughter. The issue of domestic slaughter is often discussed with the state and territory governments at the Primary Industries Standing Committee and the Standing Council on Primary Industries. Senator Xenophon – Dissenting Report Recommendation 1 1.16 That the Government, industry and the RSPCA work together as a matter of urgency to ensure supply chain security in all of Australia's live export markets. The Government agrees with the recommendation in principle. On 21 October 2011, the Government announced livestock export trade reforms that were informed by the recommendations of the Independent Review of Australia's Livestock Export Trade (Farmer Review) as well as input from the Industry Government Working Groups (IGWG) on Live Cattle Exports and on Live Sheep and Goat Exports. Industry and state and territory governments are key stakeholders in the implementation of these reforms. A new industry government implementation group has been established to provide information and advice on the implementation of these reforms, specifically the new regulatory framework and the comprehensive review of Australian standards for the export of livestock. Animal welfare groups are key stakeholders that have provided advice and information throughout the development of the new regulatory framework. The Government expects to continue this close relationship through the implementation of the livestock export trade reforms. Recommendation 2 1.17 That the Government, industry and the RSPCA work together to ensure pre-slaughter stunning is required for all animals in the domestic and live export markets as a matter of urgency. The Government disagrees with the recommendation. The Australian Government's current approach under a new regulatory framework for livestock exports for feeder and slaughter purposes is to require exporters to ensure that animals are handled and slaughtered in accordance with international World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) animal welfare requirements. The OIE does not mandate stunning of animals prior to slaughter. OIE standards cover the whole slaughter process and if followed substantially reduce welfare compromise in livestock, particularly before and during non-stun slaughter. Included in the livestock export reforms announced by the Government on 21 October 2011, the use of stunning will be encouraged in all livestock export trade for feeder and slaughter purposes through the following measures: - pursuing, where possible, bilateral agreements with our trading partners that include stunning - promoting the use of stunning including through work instructions and improved processes and stunning training through regional OIE forums - supporting industry efforts to develop and implement voluntary codes of conduct that raise standards above the OIE and that include stunning - raising the inclusion of stunning in the OIE guidelines through the formal OIE process funding animal welfare improvements in trading partners with support from Australian industry. The majority of animals in Australia are stunned prior to slaughter and where this does not occur, for religious reasons, there is a strict quality management system ensuring that animals do not suffer unnecessarily. Recommendation 3 1.18 That the Government and industry consult with producers in relation to significantly overhauling and improving the current compensation packages. Noted. The Government has already provided a range of assistance measures to support affected pastoralists and businesses; and considers that these measures were sufficient. The Government made available: – an Income Recovery Subsidy on 27 June 2011, comprising 13 weeks of income support (applications closed 5 September 2011) – a Business Assistance Package on 30 June 2011, comprising a Business Assistance Payment of $5000 (applications closed 30 September 2011) – a Business Hardship Payment of up to $20 000 (applications closed 30 September 2011) – grants of $5500 for the obtaining of financial advice (applications closed 31 December 2011) – a Subsidised Interest Rate Scheme providing a subsidy of up to $36 000 on business loans of $300 000 over two years (applications closed 10 February 2012). Existing government assistance programs available to support those affected by the suspension included: - Rural Financial Counselling Services available to primary producers and small rural businesses suffering financial difficulties  On 1 July 2011, a rural financial counsellor was located in the Northern Territory for six months to assist producers and businesses to apply for assistance and support their planning and decision-making processes. – support to Indigenous business owners, depending on individual business needs, to access wage subsidies and training for Indigenous employees; mentoring support; assistance to identify new and emerging markets; re-phase business and risk plans; and access mainstream support – the government extended priority assistance through Job Services Australia to employees who had been made redundant from eligible companies affected by the temporary suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia. Recommendation 4 1.19 That the Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] be passed, subject to a reasonable extension of the live export phase out period, following consultation with industry and the RSPCA. The Government disagrees with the recommendation. The Government is committed to supporting the continuation of the livestock export trade while ensuring the welfare of Australian animals. Recommendation 5 1.20 Further to Recommendation 4, that the Government commission an independent and comprehensive study into how the industry can be restructured to support processing of all animals within Australia. The Government disagrees with the recommendation. The Government is committed to supporting the continuation of the livestock export trade while ensuring the welfare of Australian animals. Government Response Senate Economics References Committee Report—Investing for good: the development of a capital market for the not-for-profit sector in Australia June 2012 INTRODUCTION The Australian Government welcomes the report of the Senate Economics References Committee (Committee), Investing for good: the development of a capital market for the not-for-profit sector in Australia (Investing for good) and acknowledges the important work undertaken by the Committee. The work of the Committee builds upon the 2010 Productivity Commission report, Contribution of the not-for-profit sector and assists in identifying how a capital market for the social economy sector can be developed in Australia. The Government has implemented a series of significant reforms in response to that report. In the 2011–12 Commonwealth Budget the Government announced a number of measures to drive major reforms in the not-for-profit sector and to deliver better regulation, reduce red tape and improve transparency and accountability for the sector. At the centre of these reforms is the commitment to establish a new regulator for the sector, the Australian Charities and Not- for-Profit Commission (ACNC). An implementation taskforce for the ACNC was established on 1 July 2011. The Productivity Commission also identified inadequate access to debt capital as a potential barrier to growth for some social enterprises and not-for-profit organisations. The Committee has further examined this issue, within the context of national and international trends in social impact investing, and makes a number of constructive recommendations in relation to: establishing a social finance taskforce; intermediaries and capacity building; education of financial and corporate stakeholders; promoting social investment products; strengthening social enterprise; and developing a measurement framework. Through the submissions and evidence received by the Committee, it is clear that there is growing interest and expertise in social investment concepts and practice across the public, private and community sectors in Australia. As acknowledged by the Committee, there are a number of initiatives being progressed across sectors that are helping to build the market and will serve as a valuable guide for future practice. The Government notes the Committee's findings that Government can facilitate the development of the market through a number of means, such as providing a supportive environment; taking a longer term view of its development; convening and encouraging collaboration across sectors; and designing and implementing innovative policies to challenge both social economy organisations and investors to take up new financing options. The Committee acknowledged the important 'first mover' role that the Australian Government has played through its investments in, for example, the Social Enterprise Development and Investment Funds and the National Rental Affordability Scheme. The Australian Government welcomes the Committee's comments that these initiatives are having a catalysing impact on investors and social economy organisations and will continue to encourage the type of collaborative, longer term approach that is needed to build the social investment market. Investing for good provides a valuable resource to help individuals and organisations across sectors to work towards the development of a capital market for social economy organisations in Australia over the medium to longer term. The Government has accepted in principle five of the 15 recommendations, notes eight recommendations and does not support two recommendations. The Government thanks the Committee, and all the contributors to the Inquiry, for their efforts and will draw on the Committee's work in its future deliberations. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE BY RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY Establishing a social finance taskforce Recommendation 2.1: That Committee recommends that the government establish a Social Finance Taskforce to assess mechanisms and options in the progress and development of a robust capital market for social economy organisations in Australia. The Taskforce should initially report to government by July 2012. Government response The Government supports this recommendation in principle The Government agrees in principle that a new or existing body should assess mechanisms and options to progress the development of a capital market for social economy organisations in Australia. The Government notes that harnessing the interests, skills and experience of parties from across the public, private and community sectors, could have a role in galvanising the nascent social investment sector in Australia. The Government acknowledges the Committee's suggestion that the Taskforce should have a high-level advisory role and focus on strategic policy, awareness raising and encouraging collaboration across sectors. The Government notes that it is not feasible for such a body to report to Government by July 2012. Recommendation 4.3: The Committee recommends that the proposed Social Finance Taskforce consider the potential for philanthropic trusts and foundations to invest a percentage of their corpus in social investments options, particularly with regard to: whether a requirement for philanthropic foundations to invest a percentage of their corpus in mission or program related investments is appropriate in the Australian context; how to develop appropriate social investment vehicles for philanthropic intermediaries; and any other mechanisms by which the corpus of philanthropic funds could be better utilised to invest in the social economy. Government response The Government supports this recommendation in principle The Government supports the recommendation in principle and recognises the valuable role that philanthropic trusts and foundations can play in the development of a capital market for social economy organisations. While the body referred to in Recommendation 2.1 could potentially examine the asset management of trusts and foundation, the Government notes that it has recently reviewed, and amended, its guidelines on private and public ancillary funds. As part of this review the Government formed the view that it should not be a requirement for philanthropic foundations to invest a percentage of their corpus in mission or program related investments as part of their mandatory distribution requirements. Recommendation 4.4: The Committee recommends that the proposed Social Finance Taskforce consider the potential for superannuation funds and other institutional investors to invest in emerging social impact investment products, with particular regard to ascertaining: what clarification, if any, is necessary regarding the fiduciary duties of superannuation funds and their ability to engage with social impact investment opportunities; how social impact investment classes can be used as a portfolio diversification tool by superannuation funds; whether incentives may be required in order to attract institutional investment to the sector; how social investment funds can be developed to attract institutional investment; and what possible mechanisms are available to lower the transaction costs for institutional investors seeking to engage with social investment opportunities. Government response The Government notes this recommendation The Government considers that there is opportunity to further explore the potential for superannuation funds and other institutional investors to invest in emerging social impact investment products. As noted by the Committee, there have been some first movers in the superannuation industry which are making social impact investments within the existing fiduciary and investment rules. This includes the cornerstone investment of Christian Super in one of the funds established by the Social Enterprise Development and Investment Funds Manager, Foresters Community Finance. The Government notes that superannuation trustees have fiduciary and statutory obligations to manage their fund's assets prudently and in the best interests of their members. The Government supported the recommendation in the Super System Review Panel's final report, Review into the governance, efficiency, structure and operation of Australia's superannuation system, that investment decisions should remain the responsibility of trustees. Trustees are able to choose from a spectrum of investment options, including emerging social impact investment products. From 1 July 2013, MySuper, a simple, low cost superannuation product will replace existing default products. Trustees of MySuper products will be required to develop a single diversified investment strategy, in keeping with a primary duty to act in the best financial interests of their members as measured by net investment returns and level of risk over the longer term. The Government supports the intention to clarify and communicate the existing regulatory and policy environment for institutional investors. The body referred to in Recommendation 2.1 may have a role in this work. Recommendation 5.2: The Committee recommends that the proposed Social Finance Taskforce consider possible options to develop Community Development Financial Institutions in Australia, taking into account: the findings of the forthcoming study commissioned by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs into the current regulatory and legislative environment for Community Development Financial Institutions in Australia; whether tax incentives should be established to encourage investment in CDFIs in Australia; and any other initiatives that may benefit the development of CDFIs investing in social economy organisations. Government response The Government notes this recommendation The Government notes this recommendation and acknowledges that Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFIs) can play an important intermediary role in providing credit, financial services and capacity building for individuals and communities. The report defines CDFIs in broad terms to include the full range of financial intermediary organisations with a social impact focus. As the Committee points out, CDFIs are well developed in other countries, in particular, the United States where there are over 1,000 in operation. The current CDFI pilot being undertaken by FaHCSIA is focused on providing access to finance for individuals excluded from mainstream banking services. The pilot also provides financial literacy training to these individuals. This pilot is currently being evaluated and the results are expected in August 2012. The Government will consider this recommendation further once this evaluation is completed. Education of financial and corporate stakeholders Recommendation 4.5: The Committee recommends that professional organisations such as the Australian Institute of Company Directors and investment advisory services develop materials and professional development workshops to inform the corporate sector of investment opportunities in the social economy. Recommendation 5.1: The Committee recommends that philanthropic and financial advisory services promote and encourage opportunities for social investment and engagement with the sector. Recommendation 6.1: The Committee recommends that programs and workshops relating to social impact investment be developed by investment organisations to encourage investors to engage in social investment projects and opportunities. Government response The Government notes recommendations 4.5, 5.1 and 6.1 The Government notes recommendations 4.5, 5.1 and 6.1 and supports the intention of these recommendations to encourage activities across the corporate and financial services sectors to raise awareness of social investment opportunities. Promoting social investment products Recommendation 4.1: The Committee recommends that the Australian Taxation Office, in consultation with the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission and other relevant stakeholders, issue explanatory material for Private Ancillary Fund trustees informing them of: the ability of these funds to treat any discount to the market returns on social investments as benefit for the purpose of the minimum distribution requirements; and the necessity of including a clause regarding social investment classes in their investment strategy documents in order to invest in social investment products. Government response The Government supports this recommendation in principle The Government supports this recommendation in principle and agrees that explanatory material that assists Private Ancillary Fund trustees with their decision making with regard to social investment opportunities will be a useful addition to current advice. The Australian Taxation Office will retain responsibility for issuing guidance material where the matter relates specifically to tax. From its commencement on 1 October 2012, the ACNC will be responsible for issuing explanatory material relating to the registration and regulation of charities, as provided for under its enabling legislation. These materials will include information about investments by charities and are likely to refer to social investments. Recommendation 4.2: The Committee recommends that the Commissioner of Taxation, Treasury and the ONFPS work to create benchmarks and standards for financial returns on social investment classes such as debt products and social bonds, in order to help trustees and fund managers make informed investment decisions in this area. Government response The Government does not support this recommendation The Government does not support this recommendation. It is premature to set benchmarks for financial returns on social investments and it is not clear whether benchmarks will provide an appropriate and useful guide. Further, benchmarks are not set by Government for other financial investments and, consistent with the Committee's advice that Government should assist the market rather than intervene to control it, it is preferable that new or existing market mechanisms (such as rating agencies and analysis on particular asset classes) should be encouraged to fulfil this role. Recommendation 6.2: The Committee recommends that the Departments of Treasury and Finance and Deregulation examine ways to create incentives to invest in a social bond market in Australia including the feasibility of tax exempt income returns, a government top up on coupons through cash or tax credits and the use of government guarantees. Government response The Government does not support this recommendation The Government does not support this recommendation. While the Committee notes the success that the GoodStart Consortium and the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse at Royal Prince Alfred hospital had utilising social bonds, it also notes that the uptake of social bonds in Australia has typically been limited to investors with a direct or personal connection with a specific social venture. Before considering tax concessions, more needs to be done to understand the use of social bonds and the circumstances in which they could be a viable option for encouraging social investment. Recommendation 6.3: The Committee recommends that the Office for the Not-for-Profit Sector identify policy areas where social impact bonds could be applied, including intractable problems in Indigenous communities. The plausibility of creating social impact bonds in partnership with state governments should also be examined. The Office for the Not-for-Profit Sector should work with relevant government departments and agencies and social organisations to implement a social impact bond trial. Government response The Government notes this recommendation The Government notes the emphasis given to social impact bonds during the Inquiry and is closely monitoring the social impact bond pilots in New South Wales. These pilots provide an opportunity to test the factors likely to be associated with successful social impact bonds in Australia, including the willingness and ability of service providers and investors to participate. Given social impact bonds are complex instruments; further consideration is being given to some of the potential challenges associated with their implementation. The Government also recognises that social impact bonds are only one type of social investment tool amongst a range of new and emerging products. Strengthening social enterprise Recommendation 8.1: The Office for the Not-for-Profit Sector identify relevant current and future government programs, such as Enterprise Connect and the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme, that could be extended to offer specialised support for social enterprises. The programs should be extended to include support for cooperatives, employee share ownership plans and employee buyouts. Government response The Government notes this recommendation The Government notes this recommendation. There are a range of programs available to provide advice and support to organisations and the Government supports efforts to meet the specific needs of social enterprises, where possible, within existing and future programs. Recommendation 8.2: The Department of Finance and Deregulation, Treasury and Office for the Not-for-Profit Sector should jointly conduct a review of the competitive tendering and contracting framework and examine the costs and benefits of: social tendering to identify a social purpose business rather than a competitive tendering process; and including a community/social benefit criterion in the call for and assessment of competitive tenders. Government response The Government notes this recommendation The Government will consider this recommendation further. The Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, which reflect our international trade obligations on government procurement, include a number of exemptions from mandatory procurement processes, including: the procurement of property or services from a business that primarily exists to provide the services of persons with a disability; and the procurement of property or services from a Small or Medium Enterprise with at least 50 percent Indigenous ownership. While the Government needs to further consider the impact of contracting social purpose businesses outside of a competitive tender process, it notes that social value, community or social benefit criteria might be more appropriately considered as part of the framework for grant programs. Within the non-discriminatory approach of the Commonwealth procurement framework, the Government will explore the feasibility of including social value in the consideration of value for money. Developing a measurement framework Recommendation 7.1: The Committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet identify policy areas where results based funding is already utilised and use any relevant programs as an evidence base towards the development of a robust measurement framework for social economy organisations in Australia. Government response The Government supports this recommendation in principle The Government supports this recommendation in principle and agrees that the effective measurement and reporting of social outcomes by social economy organisations is essential for building investor confidence and market transparency. The Government notes however that while result-based funding may provide some initial evidence for the development of a measurement framework, given the differences in program and contracting requirements across Government, these may have limited utility. The Government notes that a range of approaches and tools have developed internationally for measuring and managing impact and that Recommendation 7.2 proposes the development of a measurement guide based on the evaluation framework recommended by the Productivity Commission. The Government agrees that this framework provides a useful starting point for future work in this area. Recommendation 7.2: The Committee recommends the Office for the Not-for-Profit Sector in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet prepare a guide for social economy organisations to assist in evaluation of their performance. The guide should be based on the evaluation framework recommended by the Productivity Commission using inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts and include Australian case studies and emerging international measurement tools. The guide should provide social economy organisations with a number of measurement techniques as options to measure their outcomes and impacts. The committee recommends that the guide be adopted by the Council of Australian Governments and distributed to all government departments and agencies. Government response The Government supports this recommendation in principle The Government supports this recommendation in principle, and as noted above, supports using the Productivity Commission's framework as a starting point for the development of a practice guide for social economy organisations. The Government considers that the proposed guide should be developed in collaboration with social economy and social investment organisations and include a range of measurement techniques that recognises the diversity and challenges inherent in the scale and work of the social economy. The development of a guide will be considered within the context of the Office for the Not-for- Profit Sector's future work priorities. Government Response to the Senate Economics References Committee Report: The asset insurance arrangements of Australian state governments July 2012 Introduction Following the extensive flooding that occurred in Queensland over the 2010-11summer,on 3 March 2011,the Senate referred for inquiry issues relating to the insurance of state government assets to the Senate Economics References Committee. The referral was based on a Notice of Motion from independent Senator Nick Xenophon. The notice directed the committee to examine: the provisions of the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood and Cyclone Reconstruction Levy) Bill2011and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood and Cyclone Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011, current insurance and reinsurance arrangements of the states and territories of their assets and infrastructure, and the appropriateness of fiscal arrangements for natural disaster reconstruction efforts. The Commonwealth has considered the four recommendations made in the report and provides the following responses. Recomm endation 1: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government consult with state and territory governments to ensure that the states' and territories' captive insurance and reinsurance arrangements are reported transparently and on a comparable basis. Commonwealth position: The Commonwealth supports this recommendation. The Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) Determination was amended on 21March 2011to require state and territory (State) governments to commission an independent assessment of the adequacy of their insurance and reinsurance arrangements. The Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) is currently reviewing the independent assessments and will publish its findings once the review is complete. In line with the amendments to the NDRRA, each State is also required to produce and publish its independent assessment at intervals no greater than three years apart; and following any significant change in its insurance arrangements (including any reduction in the policy limit),or a major insurable disaster occurring in that State. The independent assessments submitted by each State will be made publicly available on respective State websites. The Commonwealth will continue to consult with State governments and monitor compliance under the NDRRA Determination. Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Grants Commission ensures that as part of the current redesign of its data request state and territory governments are required to include their past insurance and reinsurance receipts for natural disaster insurance premiums. These data must be taken into account by the Commission in determining the states' GST share. Commonwealth position: The Commonwealth notes this recommendation. The Commonwealth Grants Commission {the Commission) is an independent statutory body which recommends how the revenues raised from the Goods and Services Tax {GST) should be distributed to the states to achieve horizontal fiscal equalisation {HFE). The Commission advises that, as part of its data request for its 2012 Update of GST Revenue Sharing Relativities, it has sought States' premium payments and insurance receipts for the last four financial years. All States that have private insurance provided this information to the Commission. The information will be used by the Commission to estimate States' net expenses on natural disaster relief and recovery, which will then be used to calculate the recommended GST distribution for 2012-13. Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that a particular focus of the Natural Disaster Insurance Review into the adequacy of current insurance arrangements should be on whether the international insurance market offers reinsurance for the states' and territories' road networks. Commonwealth position: The Commonwealth is unable to support this recommendation. The final report of the Natural Disaster Insurance Review was provided to the Government on 30 September 2011in accordance with its Terms of Reference, and was publicly released on 14 November 2011. Given this timing, the Natural Disaster Insurance Review did not consider Recommendation 3 of the Senate Economics References Committee report on The asset insurance arrangements of Australian state governments. It is anticipated that the adequacy of reinsurance arrangements for State road networks will be amongst the issues considered as part of the review of State insurance arrangement referred to in the response to recommendation 4 below. Recommendation 4: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Treasury clarify what is meant by the term 'cost-effective' as it relates to the 2011NDRRA Determination and the scrutiny of the states' and territories' insurance arrangements. Commonwealth position: The Commonwealth notes this recommendation. The Commonwealth has been providing information to the States to assist their understanding of how the Commonwealth will review the States' independent assessments of their insurance arrangements. The NDRRA Determination was amended on 21March 2011,to incorporate a new process which requires the States to have an independent assessment undertaken of their insurance arrangements in relation to natural disaster recovery and reconstruction costs and submit those assessments to the Commonwealth. Finance is undertaking a review of the appropriateness of States' insurance arrangements and will publish as well as report the outcomes to the Commonwealth Minister for Emergency Management. Clause 4.6.4 of the NDRRA Determination sets out that each review will be guided by principles that include that a tate has a responsibility to put in place insurance arrangements which are cost effective for both the State and the Commonwealth. In looking at whether arrangements are appropriate, including whether they are cost effective, the Finance review will consider the risk management practices evident in each of the States, as well as their financial exposure related to restoration or replacement of certain essential public assets that are at risk of being damaged as a direct result of a natural disaster. In this regard, the following issues will be taken into account: States' risk management practices, details of essential public assets and details of historical losses on these assets arising from natural disasters, the risk profile of the State, based on type and frequency of disasters that the State is exposed to, history of NDRRA eligible disasters, and support received from the Commonwealth under the NDRRA Determination, details of relevant insurance policies, or information on approaches that the State has made to the market for uninsured assets, and other policies for managing financial risks relating to natural disasters. This guidance was provided to the States to assist in undertaking their independent assessments. As these independent assessments by States and reviews by the Commonwealth are a new requirement,the approaches to evaluating cost-effectiveness (and broader measures of appropriateness) are necessarily being determined as work progresses and knowledge is gained. Australian Government response to the Joint Parliamentary Committeeof Public Accounts and Audits report: Report 426 - Ninth Biannual Hearing with the Commissioner of Taxation - Recommendations 2 and 3 Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that Australian Taxation Office notifications to the Government, either directly or through Treasury, on tax policy and legislative problems be made public within 12 months of submission, along with the Government's response. Government response: The Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) has a statutory independence in his administration of the taxation laws which means that the Government cannot direct the Commissioner to administer the laws in a particular way. If the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) forms a view that the existing law may compromise revenue collections or have unintended consequences then it will be a matter for the Government to decide whether or not to amend the laws and, if so, then for Parliament to approve the necessary legislative amendments. If the Government chooses not to amend the tax laws, then the Commissioner must decide on how he responds in administering the existing law. This may mean that the ATO needs to change its administrative practices and to amend its published view about how the law applies. However, this is a matter for the Commissioner. In this context, it is worth noting that the Government also receives representations from a range of different entities (including individuals, businesses and representative groups) and that the Government takes into account these differing views before deciding whether to amend the tax laws and, if so, how to design the amendments. There is a significant risk that publishing ATO notifications to the Government about potential legislative problems could lead to uncertainty and confusion in the taxpaying community about how the ATO will administer the existing laws. Dialogue between the ATO, Treasury and the Government may canvass a range of issues which could colour the interpretation of the existing law and existing ATO published views. For example, the ATO provides various forms of public advice to taxpayers about the Commissioner's views on, and his interpretation of, the tax laws, such as public rulings, private rulings, administratively binding advice and interpretative decisions. Different types of advice provide various levels of protection against primary liabilities, penalties and interest to taxpayers who rely on that advice. It is unclear how a taxpayer would reconcile any published notifications with existing ATO views. Accordingly, the Government disagrees with this recommendation. Recommendation 3 The Committee recommends the Inspecto•r- General of Taxation's reviews be made public within a reasonable time. Government response: Section 11 of the Inspector-General of Taxation Act 2003, obliges the Minister to ensure the public release of the Inspector-General's reports within 25 sittings days of each House of Parliament after receiving it. Specifically, section I 1 states: (1) The Minister must cause a copy of each report under section 10 to be tabled in each House of the Parliament, or to be otherwise made publicly available: (a) before the general publication deadline; or (b) if the Inspector-General recommends that the tabling or public release of the report be delayed for a specified period- before the extended publication deadline. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1): (a) the general publication deadline is the end of 25 sitting days of each House of the Parliament, calculated starting from the day after the day on which the Minister receives the report; and (b) the extended publication deadline is the end of 25 sitting days of each House of the Parliament, calculated starting from the day after the day on which the period referred to in paragraph (I )(b) ends. Note: If, because of differences in the days on which the two Houses sit, the 25 sitting day period for the two Houses ends on different days, the relevant deadline is the end of the later of those days. That said, the Government notes this recommendation. about the Committee's preference for publicly releasing the Inspector-General's reports within a reasonable time. RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FINANCE and PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFERENCES COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE GOVERNMENT'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS SCHEME Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that the Government withdraw the statement made on 25 February 2011 regarding the deferral of the listing of new medicines and the new rules applying to listings from that point forward. Response The Government does not support the recommendation. On 30 September 2011, the Government announced a decision to provide subsidised access to 48 medicines from 1 December 2011, including the listing of medicines that remained deferred as a result of the statement made on 25 February 201 L, subject to Listing arrangements being met. ln the same statement, the Government announced its commitment to work with industry and consumer groups to improve the certainty around the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) listing process, while working to ensure the PBS remains sustainable. As part of this commitment, the Government undertook to not defer any drugs that cost under£ l 0 million a year for a period of 12 months while the Government works with all patties to achieve longer term PBS sustainability. The Government will continue to consider all new PBS drug listings in a timely manner and how these listings compare with other health spending priorities such as training new doctors and nurses, opening new hospital beds and investing in new preventative health programs. Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the Government retract the statement that PBAC listing recommendations will not be proceeded with until savings are found to offset the costs of listing those medicines under the PBS. Response The Government does not support the recommendation. The Government is committed to supporting a strong economy and continues to apply responsible fiscal scrutiny to all new expenditure, including those relating to PBS listings. It has always been the Government's role to consider where finite resources would best be directed and to weigh expenditure decisions against competing pressures in the budget. The Government is committed to a sustainable PBS that provides Australians with access to essential medicines. The Government has added around 700 new medicines or brands of medicines to the PBS, the Life Saving Drugs Program and the National Immunisation Program over the last four years, at a cost of around $4.5 billion. This underlines the priority which the Government places on making medicines available to Australian residents. The Government will continue to consider all new PBS drug listings in a timely manner and how these listings compare with other health spending priorities such as training new doctors and nurses, opening new hospital beds and investing in new preventative health programs. The Government announced on 30 September 20ll an agreement with the Consumers Health Forum, Generic Medicines Industry Association and Medicines Australia to improve the certainty around the PBS listing process, while working to ensure the PBS remains sustainable. As part of this agreement, all parties have committed to work together on possible future savings following the expi1y of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government and Industry. This builds on the Government's strong track record of working productively with industry and consumer groups to deliver a sustainable PBS that provides Australians with access to affordable medicines. Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that the Government should explicitly state that it rejects any imputation that the listing of new medicines requires savings to be made elsewhere in the health portfolio. Response Please refer to the response to Recommendation 2. Recommendation 4 The Government should restate its commitment to ma king an explicit decision regarding the listing of new medicines on the PBS within the terms and intent of the Memorandum of Understanding signed with Medicines Australia on 6 May 2010 and re-signed on 28 September 2010. Response The Government does not support the recommendation. The Government considers it is unnecessary to restate its commitment as it has always met, and continues to meet, its obligations outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Medicines Australia. Recommendation 5 That the Government reinstate the '$10 million rule' so that medicines that have a financial impact of less than $10 million in each year over the forward estimates can be listed on the PBS Schedule by the minister without waiting for Cabinet approval. Response The Government does not support the recommendation. While PBS listings with a financial impact are considered by the Cabinet, it does not approve PBS listings. Responsibility for listings, taking into account all information, including advice from the Cabinet, remains with the Minister for Health, in accordance with the legislative requirements of the National Health Act .1953 (as amended). It is appropriate for the Government to apply responsible fiscal scrutiny to proposed new PBS listings, as it does for all new expenditure. It has always been the Government's role to consider where finite resources would be best directed in the health portfolio and to weigh competing pressure on the budget across the health and other areas of government responsibility. The Government announced an agreement with industry and consumer groups to improve the certainty around the PBS listing process, while working to ensure the PBS remains sustainable. As part of this agreement, the Government undertook to not defer any drugs that cost under $10 million a year for a period of 12 months, while the Government works with all pat1ies to achieve longer term PBS sustainability. The Government will continue to consider all new PBS drug listings in a timely manner and how these listings compare with other health spending priorities such as training new doctors and nurses, opening new hospital beds and investing in new preventative health programs. RESPONSE TO THE AUSTRALIAN GREENS ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE GOVERNMENT'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS SCHEME Recommendation 1 That the Government investigate alternative methods of pricing generic medicines as an alternative cost-saving measure to the deferral of listings by Cabinet. Response The Government notes the recommendation. On 30 September 2011, the Government announced an agreement with the Consumers Health Forum, Generic Medicines Industry Association and Medicines Australia to improve the cet1ainty around the PBS listing process, while working to ensure the PBS remains sustainable. As part of this agreement, the Government undertook to not defer any drugs that cost under $10 million a year for a period of 12 months, while the Government works with all parties to achieve longer term PBS sustainability. As part of this agreement all parties agreed to work together on possible future savings following the expiry of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government and Industry. This builds on the Government's strong track record of working productively with industry and consumer groups to deliver a sustainable PBS that provides Australians with access to affordable medicines. Australian Government response to report: Australia's biosecurity and quarantine arrangements The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee - June 2012 Senate Inquiry into Australia's biosecurity and quarantine arrangements Terms of Reference On 23 June 2010, the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (the committee) for inquiry and report by 22 November 2010: (a) the adequacy of [Australia's] current biosecurity and quarantine arrangements, including resourcing (b) projected demand and resourcing requirements (c) progress toward achievement of reform of Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) export fees and charges (d) progress in implementation of the 'Beale Review' recommendations and their place in meeting projected biosecurity demand and resourcing (e) any related matters. The inquiry was subsequently re-adopted by the committee in the 43rd Parliament. On 22 November 2010, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 28 April 2011. The reporting date was further extended to 21 March 2012 and 4 April 2012. Australia's Biosecurity System In 2010-11, the Australian Government facilitated the movement of more than 14 million passengers and 152 million mail articles, cleared more than 2 million containers and facilitated the export of more than $36 billion worth of agriculture, fisheries and forestry products. Changing global demands, growing passenger and trade volumes, increasing imports from a growing number of countries, population expansion and climate change mean that biosecurity risk is growing. There is also an increasing demand from trading partners for greater levels of assurance in relation to Australia's exports. The 2012-13 Budget sees the Gillard Government's investment in biosecurity reach more than $1.6 billion1 since the 2009-10 Budget. This highlights the Government's commitment to continue building a sustainable biosecurity system to minimise threats to Australia's primary production sectors, human health, and the environment; with flow on effects to the wider Australian economy through faster movement across the border, protection of Australia's unique natural assets and a more effective system which facilitates international trade and underpins Australia's strong reputation as a reliable exporter of high-quality food and fibre. Biosecurity reform The Australian Government is implementing reforms to Australia's biosecurity system to continue to deliver a modern system that is responsive and targeted, in a changing global trading environment. The reforms being undertaken position us to meet demand and to ensure the biosecurity system is effective and sustainable into the future. The reform program is consistent with the themes outlined in the Beale review2, informed by previous reviews and stakeholder needs; and underpinned by five key principles: implementing a risk-based approach to biosecurity management managing biosecurity risk across the continuum – offshore, at the border and onshore strengthening partnerships with stakeholders being intelligence-led and evidence-based supported by modern legislation, technology, funding and business systems. The benefits of biosecurity reform will be realised by primary producers, the environment and trading partners – with positive flow through effects to the economy more generally. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig recently released a report that highlights the progress this Government has made since the Beale review in strengthening our biosecurity system and the challenges and opportunities ahead. The report – Reform of Australia's biosecurity system – An update since the publication of One Biosecurity: a working partnership – is available online at www.daff.gov.au/biosecurityreform. Australian Government response to the Senate committee reports On 12 December 2011, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee tabled its interim report on the Senate Inquiry into Australia's biosecurity and quarantine arrangements, titled “Biosecurity and quarantine arrangements; Interim report: the management of the removal of the fee rebate for AQIS export certification functions.” The report addressed issues regarding point (c) of the terms of reference for the inquiry. The remainder of the committee's terms of reference were addressed in the current report, titled “Australia's biosecurity and quarantine arrangements” tabled on 10 April 2012. The responses to the committee's recommendations are provided in the order they are presented in the current report. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) Biosecurity identity Areas of the department previously referred to as the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) and Biosecurity Australia (BA) are now known as DAFF Biosecurity. In this response, AQIS and BA will either be referred to as “DAFF Biosecurity” or “the department”. Response to the Senate committee recommendations from the current report: Australia's biosecurity and quarantine arrangements Recommendation 1 3.43 The committee recommends that, as part of the process of developing the new Biosecurity Bill, the Government review the Import Risk Analysis (IRA) appeals process, the role of the Eminent Scientists Group (ESG) and the publication of scientific (and other) materials used by the ESG in making determinations. The Government does not support this recommendation. The Eminent Scientist Group (ESG) is not a decision making body and does not make determinations. The independent review of Australia's quarantine and biosecurity arrangements One biosecurity: a working partnership (the Beale review) recommended that the group should be expanded to include an economist (recommendation 34). The Government has implemented this recommendation. Recommendation 2 4.32 The committee recommends that the Government give higher priority to funding and implementation of the Beale Review reforms. The Government does not support this recommendation. The Government notes that the only significant non-Government biosecurity policy announcement since the Beale review is the Coalition's 2010 pledge to establish an underfunded “special agency”, known as a Biosecurity Flying Squad which would undertake tasks currently undertaken by the department. By contrast, the Gillard Government's 2012-13 Budget provides a further $524.2 million investment in Australia's biosecurity system including a $379.9 million (over seven years) state-of-the-art post entry quarantine facility near Melbourne. This investment will build a sustainable biosecurity system. On 7 March 2012, the Gillard Government released the publication Reform of Australia's biosecurity system – An update since the publication of One Biosecurity: a working partnership3. The report outlines initial moves towards a risk return model, which have resulted in productivity improvements including: faster vessel clearance (estimated at up to $19 million per annum savings by the shipping industry); paperless processing of air cargo resulting in an estimated 25.6 working years or in excess of $1.8 million in saved industry labour costs; and targeted, rather than mandatory, external container inspections which have reduced truck waiting time at sea ports by an estimated 13.3 years per annum which saves approximately 349,000 litres of fuel and 932 tonnes of carbon emissions. These improvements – all consistent with Beale recommendations – were described by the opposition spokesperson as “Quarantine cuts”. The Government welcomes the Committee's stated commitment to the implementation of Beale recommendations. Recommendation 3 4.34 The committee recommends that the Senate refer the exposure draft (and the consultation regulation impact statement) in relation to the new Biosecurity Bill to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The Government notes this recommendation. The Government notes the Senate's interest in the exposure draft biosecurity legislation being referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. Response to the Senate committee recommendations from the interim report: Reform of export fees and charges Recommendation 1 3.9 The committee recommends that DAFF develop and maintain a comprehensive database (which includes current email addresses) and provides the means of contacting all relevant stakeholders. The Government notes this recommendation. The Establishment Register (ER) maintained by the department includes comprehensive information on all registered establishments of prescribed goods (animal and plant export products regulated under the Export Control Act 1982), including in most cases email addresses. The Export Documentation System (EXDOC) includes email contacts for most exporters. The department has also recently contacted exporters, to update their email addresses and maintains a central database of industry contacts. Recommendation 2 3.11 The committee recommends that DAFF review its current consultation model, with a view to developing a more flexible, more inclusive model that can be used into the future. The Government agrees with this recommendation. The Gillard Government is committed to implementing efficient service delivery in partnership with export certification users. As the Ministerial Task Force processes draw to a conclusion, the Australian Government has established an arrangement with each export sector to continue to drive efficiency. Consideration of stakeholder engagement is an ongoing business practice. Work has commenced on a framework and associated strategy to drive strategic engagement with our stakeholders. The department currently undertakes stakeholder engagement on specific issues. In addition, operational areas maintain links with the clients they are servicing through industry consultative committees. Large projects develop stakeholder engagement plans as part of the project management process. Recommendation 3 3.24 The committee recommends that DAFF investigate and report to the committee on the feasibility of the proposal put forward by Mr Greg Darwell to reduce the costs associated with multiple certifications for small air freight consignments. The investigation should define the eligibility criteria for 'small air freight consignments' and include a cost analysis for each of the Ministerial Task Forces to ensure equitable treatment across commodity groups. The Government does not support this option. Fees and charges are applied in accordance with the Government's cost-recovery guidelines. These guidelines require that the cost of delivering the service is recovered4. It is not appropriate to apply a “one size fits all” approach for multiple certifications for the following reasons: certification requirements are driven by importing countries and differ from commodity to commodity departmental effort is expended to review/verify/deliver information presented on each individual export permit and certificate and costs therefore differs from commodity to commodity as the cost of delivering certification differ from commodity to commodity, it cannot be arbitrarily aligned without introducing a degree of cross subsidisation. Mr Darwell's proposal has been investigated by DAFF, however it would necessitate costs to be subsidised by other fee payers and does not present an equitable outcome for all person/s that require export certification and is unlikely to be supported by the broader fee payers. Recommendation 4 3.28 The committee recommends that the 40 per cent rebate for AQIS export certification functions remain in place, and fee increases not be passed on, until negotiations with all industry sectors have been finalised and consultations with individual businesses have taken place. The Government does not support this recommendation. The department operated on the basis of full cost-recovery for all its export programs prior to 1 November 2001, at which time the Government implemented a temporary rebate on export certification to the value of 40 per cent of the cost of export certification service delivery. This rebate was renewed in 2005 and terminated, as planned, in 2009. The Government provided $127.4 million, under the Export Certification Reform Package, from the end of 2009 until 30 June 2011 to enable industry to work with Government to reduce regulatory costs and to assist the industry to move onto full cost recovery, through the development and implementation of reform initiatives. Of this total, $85.3 million was used to provide rebates to exporters of 40 per cent of their export certification costs. The rebates provided under the Export Certification Reform Package concluded on 30 June 2011. The Government agrees with the additional comments, provided by Senator Sterle, that the Minister and his department are committed to working with industries on improving service delivery and implementing efficiency. Senator Sterle has correctly noted that there is no “one size fits all” approach for multiple export certification user groups. The blanket approach of subsidising service delivery costs, against their own cost-recovery policy, is part of the problem with the Liberal/National approach. It entrenched inefficiencies in service delivery at the cost of export certification users and the Australian taxpayer. The Government notes the inconsistency of this approach with the Coalition's stated agreement to the new fees and charges and transitional assistance in the meat program5. The dairy export program is subject to full cost recovery. The grains, nuts and seeds export program will be subject to full cost recovery from 1 July 2012. The meat, fish and eggs programs are subject to transitional assistance until 2013. Government has been working with horticulture exporters to implement new fees and charges for this sector on 1 July 2012, and to determine the most appropriate mechanism for the application of transitional assistance. Recommendation 5 3.31 The committee recommends that DAFF explore the possibility of developing a mechanism whereby stakeholders can submit suggestions or complaints confidentially or anonymously. The Government notes this recommendation. The department has well established complaints receiving mechanisms consistent with other Australian Government agencies but will consider the issue in taking steps consistent with Recommendation 2. ——————— 1 As indicated in MAFF media releases and 2012-13 Budget announcements 2 Beale, R., Fairbrother, J. Inglis, A., and Trebeck, D. 2008, One Biosecurity: A working partnership, Canberra; accessible at: http://daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/931609/report-single.pdf. 3 Available at www.daff.gov.au/biosecurityreform 4 Further information on the Government’s cost recovery guidelines can be found at: http://www.finance.gov.au/financial-framework/financial-management-policy-guidance/cost-recovery.html. 5 (Coalition Stands by Meat Industry to the tune of $25.8 million – Media Release, Hon. John Cobb MP, accessible at: http://www.nationals.org.au/News/LatestNews/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6790/Coalition-stands-by-the-Meat-Industry-to-the-tune-of-258-million.aspx) Australian Government response to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report: The Torres Strait: Bridge and Border AUGUST 2012 Australian Government Response to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee Report: The Torres Strait: Bridge and Border This is the Australian Government's response to the report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee Inquiry into the administration and management of health issues, law and order, conservation, biosecurity, climate change, border protection and economic development in the Torres Strait, The Torres Strait: Bridge and Border, as tabled on 26 November 2010. The Torres Strait Treaty, which entered into force in 1985, defines the territorial boundaries between Australia and Papua New Guinea; establishes a Protected Zone to acknowledge and protect the traditional way of life and livelihood of the traditional inhabitants, including traditional fishing and free movement; and sets out a comprehensive consultative framework for the management of the common area. There are well-established mechanisms for Australian, Queensland and PNG Government agencies to work as partners with local communities in the Torres Strait. The government welcomes the committee's observation that evidence presented to the committee shows clearly that government agencies in the Torres Strait work together to ensure that their assets are used efficiently and shared as necessary. The government shares the committee's conviction that the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and the Torres Strait Regional Authority are key institutions in the overall governance structure of the Torres Strait and have a pivotal role in matters such as community policing, conservation, biosecurity, border security, economic development and Australia's relations with Papua New Guinea. A comprehensive set of Traditional Visit Guidelines has been developed over time with the full agreement of community leaders from Australia and Papua New Guinea to protect the traditional way of life of the traditional inhabitants of the region. These guidelines are updated as required at Traditional Inhabitants' Meetings. The guidelines have been widely distributed in the Treaty region and will continue to be distributed by Treaty liaison officers in their regular visits to Treaty villages. The government welcomes the committee's acknowledgement of the significant contribution by health care professionals in the Torres Strait and the committee's support for the initiatives of the Australian and PNG Governments to establish new, or improve existing, health facilities in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea. The government recognises that responsive and effective action by all stakeholders to make the Torres Strait Treaty work at all levels, including through addressing the concerns of traditional inhabitants and countering any misunderstandings about the Treaty's provisions, will be critical to maintaining support for the Treaty and ensuring its long term sustainability. The attached response to the committee's recommendations reflects the government's commitment to protecting the traditional way of life and livelihood of the traditional inhabitants of the region. Australian Government Response to The Torres Strait: Bridge and Border Recommendation Position Comment Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that through the Package of Measures developed by the Health Issues Committee, the Australian Government continue to support PNG initiatives to establish new, or improve existing, health facilities in Western Province so that PNG nationals no longer need to seek health care in the Torres Strait. Agreed. The Australian Government continues to work with Papua New Guinea to improve health services in the Western Province, with a particular focus on tuberculosis services. AusAID is providing $8 million over four years (2011-12 to 2014-15) to support the South Fly District TB Management Program. Key elements of Australia's support include the recruitment of a Tuberculosis Medical Officer and Tuberculosis Program Coordinator to provide tuberculosis services to Daru Hospital and outreach to the villages in the South Fly Region. Australian support also includes: a purpose-built sea ambulance which has been constructed to support mobile health clinics along the coast, with funding for operational costs; and upgraded infrastructure at Daru Hospital, with the completion of a interim five-bed tuberculosis isolation ward, and communications centre to support patient management including referrals from Queensland Health. In 2012, AusAID will fund construction of a purpose-built 22-bed tuberculosis ward at Daru Hospital (expected completion December 2012), upgrade the existing X-Ray machine and provide a GeneXpert machine that allows an indication of tuberculosis drug resistance within two hours (both are expected to be delivered in May 2012). At the request of the Government of PNG, in October 2011 AusAID scoped the infrastructure requirements needed to improve tuberculosis services in South Fly. AusAID will negotiate a package of support with the PNG Government to improve health service delivery in Western Province which may include refurbishing rural health facilities and related staff housing outside Daru. The funding and implementation of activities under the Package of Measures is the responsibility of the respective governments according to jurisdictional coverage. Through the Torres Strait Cross Border Health Issues Committee and the joint PNG-Australia Ministerial Forum, the Australian Government will continue to work with Papua New Guinea to finalise and progress elements of the Package. Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the Australian Government give serious consideration to measures that would further facilitate the proposal for greater cross-border involvement by Australian health professionals in both the provision of services and capacity building on the PNG side of the border. Agreed. The Australian Government has agreed a Facilitated Cross-Border Movements initiative with the PNG Government. The relevant Australian agencies have prepared the necessary guidelines and procedures to operationalise the initiative. The first facilitated cross-border movement took place in October 2011. Movements have since continued as required including for Health clinics. The initiative has made capacity-building and liaison activities easier to deliver, and enabled the transfer of PNG tuberculosis patients to the care of Western Province health services through joint Queensland Health-PNG clinics on Saibai and Boigu in the Torres Strait. Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that the Australian Government use the Papua New Guinea-Australia Partnership for Development to detail the assistance it is providing to PNG to improve the delivery of health services in the southern part of Western Province and to ensure that projects undertaken in this region are appropriately monitored and evaluated during implementation and after completion. Noted. The Australian Government will continue to use the Papua New Guinea-Australia Partnership for Development to guide its commitments on improved health service delivery in Papua New Guinea, including in the southern part of Western Province. The Partnership for Development is a framework for cooperation between the governments of Papua New Guinea and Australia which aims to accelerate progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and other PNG development priorities. The Partnership establishes agreed priority areas for development, commits minimum levels of funding from both governments to support priority outcomes and focuses development efforts on service delivery. Australia's specific commitments to improve the delivery of health services in Papua New Guinea are detailed in the Health Schedule to the Partnership for Development. The Health Schedule also includes resource indicators which track health spending on specific commitments by both governments. The Health Schedule was revised in 2011 to reflect the recommendation of the Development Cooperation Treaty Review to increase the focus on service delivery in the aid program. The revised health schedule agreed with the PNG Government, and the related Australia-Papua New Guinea Health Delivery Strategy 2011 – 2015, details Australia's commitment throughout Papua New Guinea and priority provinces, including Western Province. The Australian Government is committed to strengthening the impact of all its programs and therefore performance is measured at strategy, program and activity levels. This monitoring includes processes such as annual performance reporting of programs, quality reporting of activities and evaluation reports of activities. The Australian Government monitors and evaluates all projects it undertakes in the southern part of the Western Province. AusAID and the Torres Strait Cross Border Health Issues Committee (HIC) will continue to work together to ensure any activities to improve health services in the Western Province are appropriately reflected in agreements and appropriately monitored and evaluated. Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that to improve accountability and transparency of Australia's development aid spending, AusAID's Office of Development Effectiveness (ODE) conduct an analysis of Australia's funding in relation to Western Province in the Torres Strait region. This analysis must provide an accurate and quantifiable account of the effectiveness of Australian aid provided to Western Province in the Torres Strait region. Special consideration must be given to the outcomes of Australian Government initiatives in the region, including both technical achievements and outputs and changes in attitudes and behaviour. Noted. The Australian Government agrees that ongoing analysis of Australia's funding in relation to Western Province in the Torres Strait region is important to ensure accountability and transparency of its development aid spending. AusAID will continue to undertake analysis of all funding it provides, and all activities it undertakes, in relation to the Western Province in the Torres Strait Region through its performance management and reporting system, which analyses the performance of programs against their objectives and from a development effectiveness perspective. The Office of Development Effectiveness (ODE) believes that the relatively small size of official development assistance provided to the Western Province of the Torres Strait means that the most appropriate mechanism to evaluate these activities would be AusAID's program performance management and reporting system. Recommendation 5 The committee recommends that the analysis mentioned in the previous recommendation also look closely at the extent and effectiveness of AusAID's cooperation with Queensland Health and consider ways to ensure that their work in the Torres Strait region is seamless across the border and that their operations and funding complement each other. Noted. The Australian Government recognises the need to ensure effective cooperation between AusAID and Queensland Health in the Torres Strait region given the connection between their respective activities and the strategic importance of the region. The Torres Strait Cross Border Health Issues Committee (HIC) provides a forum for Australian Government agencies to work closely with Queensland Health to ensure that respective projects and processes complement each other. The HIC is a forum for the governments of Australia, Papua New Guinea and Queensland to discuss health issues affecting the Australia-Papua New Guinea border Treaty villages. It is chaired by the Australian Department of Health and Ageing and includes representatives from various Australian Government agencies, Queensland Department of Health, Queensland Department of Premier and Cabinet, PNG Government and Western Province Administration. It facilitates increased cooperation and communication between these agencies and departments. These cooperative arrangements were evident in the close collaboration that took place between Australian agencies and Queensland Health to address issues in the Torres Strait region during the 2010 cholera outbreak in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea. Evaluations conducted through the aid activities quality reporting process include consultation with all relevant agencies and stakeholders. This includes consultation with Queensland Health, where appropriate. In September 2011, the Government of PNG, Commonwealth agencies and Queensland Health agreed to a staged transfer of PNG tuberculosis patients. This process has been sucessful, with only 15 PNG tuberculosis patients remaining under the care of Queensland Health as of April 2012. The remaining patients will be transferred in June 2012. On 23 April 2012, the Government of PNG, Commonwealth agencies and Queensland Health developed an agreed process for communication and referral of PNG nationals presenting at a health clinic in the Torres Strait. A plan for ongoing clinical collaboration between Queensland Health and Western Province has also been developed. Recommendation 6 The committee recommends that the Australian Government review its funding to Queensland Health to ensure that such funding is commensurate with the actual costs incurred by Queensland Health in providing health care to PNG nationals. Not supported. The Australian Government is continuing discussions with Queensland Health to better understand the level of services currently provided to Papua New Guinea nationals and identify ways to address increasing demands on the Queensland health system. The Government considers it is more appropriate to work with PNG governments to build health services particularly in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea to ensure a better public health approach and improve access by PNG nationals to health services in their own country. Recommendation 7 The committee recommends the Australian Government offer assistance to help the Queensland Government fund the implementation of the new data collection systems for PNG nationals accessing health services in the Torres Strait; and provide funding, if required, for a review of the effectiveness of this system. Noted. The Australian Government will continue to work with Queensland Health on data collection needs using current, well-established systems. Recommendation 8 The committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship ensure that its statistics on PNG nationals visiting Australia, including those in Australia receiving medical treatment, are complete and complement those collected by Queensland Health. Agreed. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) will continue to ensure its statistics on PNG nationals visiting Australia are complete. Furthermore, DIAC and Queensland Health have agreed on a process to ensure that these statistics complement those collected by Queensland Health. The variation in the numbers reported is primarily due to different reporting parameters. The statistics reported by Queensland Health refer to the number of times PNG nationals are treated at the Primary Health Centre, whereas the statistics reported by DIAC represent PNG nationals who identify on arrival that their sole purpose for travel is to seek medical treatment. DIAC's statistics do not include PNG nationals who arrive in Australia to undertake lawful traditional activity and subsequently seek treatment at the Primary Health Centre during the course of their traditional and lawful visit to the island. DIAC and Queensland Health have agreed to regular meetings between staff on Thursday Island and on the outer islands, in order to: Examine the end to end process for the collection of statistics in relation to PNG nationals presenting for health treatment Examine, analyse and reconcile differences and exceptions between the data collected by each agency Explore an enhanced sharing of information process on clients. Recommendation 9 The committee recommends that relevant Australian government agencies combine their efforts to ascertain whether, or the extent to which, PNG nationals are coming to Australia to access social services, whether they are misinformed about their entitlements and, if so, the source of this misinformation and how best to correct it. Noted. This recommendation relates primarily to evidence the committee heard during its visit to the Torres Strait about PNG women choosing to give birth in Australia due to a belief that they would be eligible for the baby bonus and an improved chance of obtaining Australian citizenship. Relevant Commonwealth agencies can find no indication of significant numbers of PNG nationals giving birth in the Torres Strait in order to access social services such as the baby bonus, or to improve their chances of obtaining Australian citizenship. In 2010, there were 11 births registered in the Torres Strait by PNG women. To be eligible for the Baby Bonus, the claimant must meet residence requirements. To meet residence requirements the claimant must have legal residence status (such as an appropriate Visa) and be residing in Australia on an ongoing basis. That is, Australia must be their home. Anyone giving birth in clinics in the Torres Strait is required to provide proof of residency before such information is entered into the clinic's birth records. A child born in Australia on or after 20 August 1986 becomes an Australian citizen by birth only if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or a permanent resident at the time of the child's birth. The Treaty provides for the designation of Treaty liaison officers by Australia and Papua New Guinea who consult on a day-to-day basis with each other and with officials and traditional inhabitants in the region. A range of federal, state and local government agencies are involved in the management of the free movement provisions of the Treaty but much of the day to day management rests with community leaders who have established a comprehensive set of Traditional Visits Guidelines for traditional inhabitants, consistent with the provisions of the Treaty. These leaders work with the Australian and PNG Treaty Liaison officers, based respectively at Thursday Island and Daru, who consult regularly on the implementation of the Treaty at the local level. Traditional activities are clearly defined, both in the Treaty and in the Guidelines. In addition, the Guidelines register clearly that "Traditional visits do not include activities that are not traditional, for instance visits to the medical clinic." The Australian Government's Treaty Liaison Officer conducts regular Treaty Awareness Visits with his PNG counterpart to Treaty villages where contemporary issues are raised. During these visits, these officers will continue to address any misinformation on entitlements. Recommendation 10 The committee recommends that the Queensland Government consider, as part of its overall review of policing in Indigenous communities, increasing Community Police Officer powers in order to enable them to respond more effectively to incidents in Torres Strait island communities and providing appropriate training and supervision in the use of these powers. The findings of the recent Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission inquiry provide an ideal starting point. Noted. The Queensland Government responded directly to the committee on this recommendation in November 2011. Recommendation 11 With regard to matters dealing with visiting PNG nationals, the committee believes the Australian Government has a direct responsibility. It recommends the Australian Government should confer with the Queensland Government on how best it, and particularly the AFP, can assist with any law and order issues that arise because of the shared border and the presence of PNG nationals in the Torres Strait. Noted. The AFP confers with the Queensland Government through the Queensland Police on law enforcement issues. Broader issues are pursued under a wide range of existing mechanisms between Queensland Police and relevant Commonwealth agencies with border functions, including Customs and Border Protection, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), as well as between these agencies and their PNG equivalents. Further detailed information on AFP interaction with relevant Queensland, Australian and PNG Government agencies on law and order issues is provided under the response to Recommendation 22. Recommendation 12 The committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that funding for the development of community management plans and the employment of community rangers is secure and commensurate with the maintenance and progress of these plans. In recognition of the important role of community rangers in both conservation and biosecurity, the committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with TSIRC and TSRA, gives consideration to making these positions permanent. Noted. The Working on Country program is part of an overall Australian Government commitment of $245.5 million until June 2013 to create up to 660 ongoing Indigenous ranger positions across the nation. This will provide long-term employment for Indigenous land and sea managers. Forty-two ranger positions have been approved for the Torres Strait, with groups to be established on all inhabited islands. Twenty-one rangers are currently employed, with the remainder to commence as soon as possible. The ranger groups are responsible for identifying and implementing the sustainable management of dugong and turtle within their community-based management plans. Other activities on both sea and land include researching and surveying significant coastal and marine habitats, seed collection and plant propagation, fire management and the maintenance of cultural sites. For Torres Strait Islanders, the land and sea are intrinsic to identity and the work of the rangers is in many ways about maintaining country, identity and culture. The activities of ranger groups are negotiated annually between the Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA), the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) and the traditional owners from the land or sea country where work is undertaken. The Australian Government works closely with Papua New Guinea's Department of the Environment and Conservation (DEC), including co-chairing (through DSEWPaC) the Environmental Management Committee under the Torres Strait Treaty. DEC has demonstrated a strong commitment to work with PNG Treaty communities in the Western Province to develop community-based management plans for the sustainable management of marine turtle and dugong, along the lines of those plans developed by Australian Torres Strait communities with TSRA. Australian agencies will lend further appropriate expertise and advice on this work as it is requested, particularly through the Environmental Management Committee mechanism. Recommendation 13 The committee recommends that AusAID, in conjunction with local communities in the Torres Strait, consider ways that would enable much greater engagement by PNG villagers in the work of community rangers in the Torres Strait as a means of educating and training them in conservation and biosecurity and in managing their environment. In particular, the committee recommends that the Australian Government support the TSRA's efforts to engage coastal communities in Western Province in turtle and dugong conservation. The committee recommends further that the Australian Government fund a number of scholarships for PNG post-graduate students whose research would be linked to the community management plans now in operation in the Torres Strait and the work of community rangers. Noted. Noted. Agreed. The Australian Government agrees that increased engagement between PNG villagers in the work of community rangers in the Torres Strait is an important means of educating and training villagers in conservation and biosecurity and in managing their environment. Community rangers in the Torres Strait already have considerable engagement with villagers in the Torres Strait. The TSRA facilitates this engagement. Community rangers engage with villagers both directly and through the inclusion of community villages in formal processes such as Treaty Cycle meetings. Approximately four times a year TSRA staff engage with the PNG Western Province villages of Sigabaduru, Mabaduan and the Australian communities of Boigu, Saibai and Dauan. Activities include awareness raising and communications on research and other activities that promote sustainability. TSRA is committed to working with Treaty villagers on implementation of the turtle and dugong community-based plans. TSRA has developed Community Based Turtle and Dugong Management Plans in all Australian Treaty communities. All the Plans have been officially endorsed by the appropriate traditional elders and clan based representatives of each community with the exception of the Kaiwalagal region (Inner Western Island Group), who are yet to update and endorse their Plan. TSRA are finalising the development of a regional catch monitoring database to store voluntary dugong and turtle catch data and create a tool for community education and community-based decision making in regard to significant pressure areas, implementation of traditional hunting closures and other culturally acceptable management tools. The analysed data, along with the Management Plans, will be used to assist PNG to adopt similar management arrangements for sustainable hunting practices in their Torres Strait communities. TSRA and other Australian government agencies are continuing to work with Western Province Treaty villages, PNG officials and other stakeholders to progress the development of community-based management plans for the sustainable use of critical marine resources, including turtle and dugong, in Western Province Treaty villages. This was a commitment given through Australia's bilateral engagement in the Environmental Management Committee (EMC), a consultative body for detailed consideration of Torres Strait environmental issues. The engagement of rangers with communities is only part of the way Australia engages with PNG communities. TSRA regularly interacts directly with Western Province community members and the Australian Government's Treaty Liaison Officer conducts regular Treaty Awareness Visits with his PNG counterpart where contemporary issues are raised, including relevant environmental issues. DSEWPaC has also worked closely with the Sea Turtle Foundation to increase community awareness of sustainable management of turtle and dugong in Western Province communities. This is through the provision of educational material, training of teachers and working with fishers themselves. Australian Government Scholarships to Papua New Guinea are awarded in areas of study that have been identified by the PNG Government as priority training for national development. Reflecting best practice, these priorities are determined by a Joint Steering Committee (JSC) with majority PNG Government representation as well as representatives from civil society, donors and academia. The Joint Steering Committee informs the scholarships selection panel, which it oversees, of these national priorities on an annual basis and the selection panel awards scholarships accordingly. AusAID is represented on the Joint Standing Committee and will recommend post-graduate scholarships be awarded to students whose research would be linked to the community management plans now in operation in the Torres Strait and the work of community rangers. However, the final decision rests with the JSC and will reflect Papua New Guinea's national development priorities. Recommendation 14 The committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that there is adequate funding available for: regular assessment of stocks of protected or vulnerable marine species in the Torres Strait; and research into the nature and size of the catch by traditional inhabitants and the illegal or unauthorised harvest of marine turtles, dugong and bêche-de-mer in the Torres Strait. Noted. The Australian Government recognises the importance of access to current and accurate data and research relating to the management of fisheries in the Torres Strait. Several research projects are currently being funded by the Protected Zone Joint Authority (PZJA) as well as DSEWPaC. Research in the Torres Strait is also funded by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC). The Torres Strait Scientific Advisory Committee (TSSAC) coordinates this research and also advises research bodies on strategic directions, priorities and potential funding opportunities for Torres Strait fisheries research. The PZJA agencies which comprise the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), TSRA and Fisheries Queensland1 collectively fund research work in the Torres Strait to around $1.2 million per annum and researchers are actively encouraged to engage with local communities wherever possible. TSSAC, a subcommittee of the PZJA, is the advisory body for identifying strategic directions, priorities and potential funding opportunities for Torres Strait fisheries research. TSSAC does not directly commission research but is responsible for ensuring research in the Torres Strait is conducted in a coordinated manner with other research bodies. TSSAC has developed guidelines to determine strategic research priority areas for fisheries in the Torres Strait. TSSAC has also produced a Strategic Research Plan for Torres Strait Fisheries 2009 to describe how it will use research opportunities to improve management of the fisheries resources of the Torres Strait. This plan includes a focus on both stock assessment and catch monitoring for turtles, dugong and bêche-de-mer. Current research projects include: Recovery of the Holothria scabra (Sandfish) population on Warrior Reef. Sandfish is one species of bêche-de-mer and has been subject to overfishing; Development of cultural protocols for conducting research in the Torres Strait; Refined stock assessment and Total Allowable Catch estimation for the Torres Strait Tropical Rock Lobster fishery; An Integrated Management Strategy Evaluation for the Torres Strait Tropical Rock Lobster fishery. Important research on the size and status of bêche-de-mer stocks was undertaken in 2009 (Torres Strait Hand Collectables, 2009 survey: Sea Cucumber by Skewes et al 2010). The survey work found that the density of a key species of the bêche-de-mer fishery, Holothuria whitmaei (Black teatfish), had increased significantly since 2005. Density data indicates that this species has recovered to near natural (unfished) densities. The data collected during the 2009 survey indicates that most other species are considered to be at or near virgin stock biomass. Data collected during the survey also revealed that is highly likely that some species may have had a low biomass to begin with. The 2009 survey found that the density of Holothuria fuscogilva (White teatfish) appeared to be increasing and that the density of Thelenota ananas (Prickly redfish) appeared to be stable with the average size larger than previous years' surveys. The relative abundance of the highest value species Holothuria scabra (Sandfish) was assessed by visual surveys in 2010. Survey densities were found to be at similar levels to 2004, however, numbers of juveniles showed a large increase. The Sandfish population was made up of possible seven year classes representing a significant breeding potential. The survey raised questions as to the relative impacts of burrowing of Sandfish, illegal fishing, and or low recruitment on the observed numbers of Sandfish. A further survey using different techniques was undertaken in March 2012 to coincide with environmental conditions that best compare to those of previous scientific surveys in the area. The results of this survey will be published in late 2012. It is also expected that the implementation of Community Based Harvest Strategies that will instigate strategies to mitigate against localised depletion and collect fishery and fishery-independent data will assist with the further recovery of stocks in the Torres Strait bêche-de-mer fishery. In collaboration with developing the harvest strategies, a research project assessing suitable areas for ranching of bêche-de-mer and trochus is also being executed. Other government agencies/departments operate in the Torres Strait, including DSEWPaC and its recently announced National Environmental Research Program that includes a Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait research hub with up to $25.8 million in funding. The Torres Strait focus of the hub will be securing the resilience of environmental assets and communities in the Torres Strait. Particular attention will be paid to addressing cumulative threats, including invasive species, climate change, human exploitation, potential pollution from settlements and economic development in Papua New Guinea. Research in the Torres Strait is also funded by CSIRO and the FRDC. Capacity for catch monitoring or assessment of marine turtle and dugong species will also be developed via Caring for our Country funding with Working on Country funding supporting the implementation of the Community Dugong and Turtle Management Plans in the Torres Strait. Recommendation 15 The committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that when allocating funding for research projects in the Torres Strait, relevant agencies place a high priority on projects that demonstrate a commitment to engaging local communities in the formulation and design of these projects and, where possible, to training local Indigenous people in research techniques and sustainable management. Noted. One of the key investments of the National Environment Research Program (NERP) is a Great Barrier Reef, Torres Strait and Rainforest Hub with up to $25.8 million for research over the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. The priorities and design of research projects under this hub will draw extensively on consultation with a range of stakeholders, including communities and the TSRA. The NERP Great Barrier Reef, Torres Strait and Rainforest Hub will involve researchers from a range of institutions, including the James Cook University, CSIRO, Australian Institute of Marine Science and Queensland University. A Steering Committee has been established to oversee the rollout of this research hub and a TSRA representative has been a member of that committee since its creation in June 2010. A monitoring and evaluation program has been developed for the NERP, which will include reports on the level of community consultation and engagement in the research, as well as providing details of the program's research outputs, project deliverables and outcomes. Recommendation 16 The committee recommends that: As a high priority, the Australian Government consider engaging AusAID and other Australian agencies working in PNG such as ACIAR as partners with Australian research bodies working on the Australian side of the border. This partnership, which would include local communities, would be designed to ensure that work on the PNG side complements, builds on and reinforces the conservation and biosecurity work being done on the Australian side; In line with this priority, the committee recommends that wherever practical, researchers or project officers working in the Torres Strait are encouraged to establish or strengthen partnerships with counterparts in PNG so that work on both sides of the border is complementary and builds critical networks of researchers who are then well positioned to collaborate in further research. AusAID could act as a key coordinator in forging these links. Noted. Noted. The Australian Government agrees that partnership between Australian agencies working in Papua New Guinea and Australian research bodies working on the Australian side of the border is a high priority. The Australian Government partners with a number of Australian research bodies on both sides of the border which conduct studies relating to Papua New Guinea. This is through initiatives such as the National Environmental Research Program. As a standard practice, Australian researchers develop partnerships with the local PNG communities and PNG officials, as appropriate, in the prosecution of their research activities. An example is the ACIAR project, Animal health surveillance systems for Papua New Guinea. This project aims to facilitate more rapid reporting of incursions of exotic diseases and outbreaks of newly emerging diseases. This project is a collaborative partnership between James Cook University, Murdoch University, and a range of stakeholder organisations in Papua New Guinea including the National Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Authority. The key coordinator for forging research links will vary depending on the type and subject of research. Therefore, AusAID will not always be the most appropriate agency to act as coordinator. Recommendation 17 The committee recommends that the Australian Government assist Torres Strait Islanders to assume a central role in biosecurity-relevant studies, including research into management of indigenous flora and fauna, and surveying and monitoring threats to their localities, such as illegal fishing or the introduction of harmful weeds or pests. Noted. The Australian Government recognises the importance of involving Torres Strait Islanders in the sustainable management of the Torres Strait land and sea environments. The employment of Indigenous rangers through the recently established Land and Sea Management Unit will play an important part in strengthening this involvement. The involvement of Indigenous communities is also important to effectively manage biosecurity risks to the region. A strong public awareness campaign currently educates Torres Strait Islanders in the biosecurity threats of concern, encourages reporting of pests or diseases and promotes compliance associated with the movement of quarantine risk material. The Australian Government also recognises the valuable contribution that Indigenous Australian quarantine officers make in securing the integrity of the border. Fisheries Management As member agencies for the PZJA, the TSRA, AFMA, DAFF and Queensland Fisheries 2 work closely together to deliver a fisheries management consultative structure that provides for Traditional Inhabitant involvement. The TSRA facilitates the participation of Traditional Inhabitant involvement through the Indigenous Fisheries Advisory Committee . TSRA coordinates the engagement of Indigenous Fisheries Advisory Committee (IFAC) members in the consultative process of the PZJA and supports capacity building for Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal people to assist with their participation . IFAC members are involved in various PZJA advisory committees and working groups, and also attend the annual bi-lateral fisheries meeting between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The TSRA also coordinates the delivery of regional and local level land and sea management initiatives in the Torres Strait and supports communities in accessing additional financial and technical support and information about the sustainable management of their environments. The TSRA is providing a regional centre-of-operations function for the Torres Strait Land and Sea Indigenous Ranger Program. The Ranger Program provides opportunities for improved community-based land and sea management through the employment of Indigenous rangers. Consultants and researchers have been engaged to assist with improving understanding about the significance, condition and management requirements of the ecosystems and the flora and fauna of the Torres Strait. Community consultation visits, meetings and field inspections are regular occurrences, facilitated by the operational on-ground support of rangers. The TSRA is building on its success with the initial Ranger Program to expand the program to the communities that do not have a ranger presence. The priority work plan of the rangers is established through the Torres Strait Land and Sea Management Strategy and the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsular Regional Plan 2009-2029. AFMA staff, situated on Thursday Island, provide fishers and the public with information about the rules and regulations for fisheries in the Torres Strait. Stakeholders and the public are able to contact/visit the office to discuss fisheries matters and find out about the management of fisheries in the Torres Strait. Fisheries management staff also visit communities to discuss key issues and to ensure communities are empowered with the appropriate information to assist with the management of fisheries resources. Biosecurity AQIS, through its Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy (NAQS) program, has primary responsibility for managing the quarantine aspects of the movement of people and cargo through the Torres Strait. To achieve effective border management NAQS employs staff on all inhabited islands of the Torres Strait Protected Zone as well as on Horn Island, Thursday Island and Bamaga. There are currently 29 AQIS staff employed in the Torres Strait and on the Northern Peninsula Area; of these twenty-six are Indigenous. The Torres Strait islands are identified as a key risk pathway for the movement of NAQS target animal and plant pests and diseases from Papua New Guinea and other neighbouring countries. As such, this region is the focus of regular risk-based scientific surveys for the early detection of target organisms. To enhance the ability of AQIS to manage and respond to biosecurity risk, the NAQS program is aware of the importance of educating Torres Strait Islanders in the biosecurity threats of concern, encouraging reporting of pests or diseases and promoting compliance associated with the movement of quarantine risk material. This is currently achieved through a strong public awareness component of the program, delivered through local AQIS officers, regular local radio segments and visiting specialist scientists employed by the NAQS program. Torres Strait Islander groups such as general community members, local council employees such as Environmental Health Workers and Animal Management Officers are actively engaged by the NAQS to meet these objectives. AQIS will explore further opportunities with the recently established Land and Sea Management ranger groups to enable them to attain a greater awareness and understanding of the potential impact of the introduction of harmful pests, weeds and disease. Recommendation 18 The committee recommends that DFAT assume the leadership role in exploring ways with relevant border control agencies to make better use of modern technologies to identify travelers visiting the Torres Strait. The aim would be to implement as soon as practicable an improved means of identification for people crossing the border in the Torres Strait that would be in keeping with the spirit of the Treaty. Noted. The Torres Strait Treaty recognises the importance of protecting the traditional way of life and livelihood of the traditional inhabitants of the region in a cross-border context. The free movement provisions permit traditional inhabitants to travel for traditional purposes in, and in the vicinity of, the Protected Zone without the visa and passport controls which normally apply to international travel. There is no legal requirement for identification documents. Although a visitor pass system has been established, the lack of identifiable documents poses both law enforcement and border protection issues. Commonwealth and Queensland agencies will continue to work to minimise deficiencies in the visitor pass system. Commonwealth agencies are receptive to considering options for an improved means of identification for people crossing the border in the Torres Strait but recognise that the introduction of a more rigorous identity system could be viewed as being a substitute for a passport and, therefore, not in keeping with the spirit of the Treaty. Relevantly, a voluntary system of boat identification for PNG Traditional Inhabitant vessels will begin during 2012. Recommendation 19 The committee recommends that DFAT jointly with DIAC, Customs and Border Protection, the AFP and Queensland Police review the ways in which government agencies currently work with local communities as partners to promote border security. The intention would be to consult with local communities to gauge their views on how their role in border security could be improved and to use this process to strengthen the intelligence network on the ground in the Torres Strait. Noted. There are well-established mechanisms for government agencies to work with local communities as partners, including to promote border security. The Treaty provides for the designation of Treaty Liaison Officers by Australia and Papua New Guinea who consult on a day-to-day basis with each other and with officials and traditional inhabitants in the region. The Treaty also established the Joint Advisory Council (JAC), co-chaired by senior officials from the PNG and Australian Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to review implementation of the Treaty. The JAC is an advisory and consultative body, comprising members of national, state and provincial governments, and traditional representatives. One of the many consultative committees which inform the JAC is the annual Traditional Inhabitants Meeting (TIM) which is co-chaired by traditional leaders from Papua New Guinea and Australia. The TSRA together with a wide range of Commonwealth, State and Local Government agencies has been involved in Regional Plan Working Groups (RPWG) as part of the TSRA led Integrated Service Delivery (ISD) Project. Border security issues fell within the auspice of the Safe Communities RPWG. In the work completed to date by the ISD Project Team, there has only been limited involvement by border protection agencies in the RPWG discussions. The TSRA proposes that the new Regional Plan Action Group for Safe Communities, to be formed in the next stage of the ISD Project, would have representation from all agencies involved in border protection in the region. Further discussion on ISD is provided in the response to Recommendation 32. Recommendation 20 The committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to support and fund adequately the effort to combat illegal fishing in the Torres Strait. Noted. Illegal foreign fishing is one of the eight identified threats which impact on Australia's maritime security. Customs and Border Protection has a collaborative relationship with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), Defence, DIAC and a number of other agencies to cooperate in the delivery of the Government policy affecting illegal foreign fishing in Australia's northern waters. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for both the offshore surveillance and response which is co-ordinated through Border Protection Command and the onshore processing of illegal foreign fishers and their vessels. AFMA is responsible for the efficient and sustainable management of Commonwealth fish resources on behalf of the Australian community. In particular, AFMA undertakes prosecution action against illegal foreign fishers in consultation with the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions, where appropriate. DIAC is responsible for providing detention and removal services of illegal foreign fishers once the onshore processing is complete and they have been transferred from Customs and Border Protection to DIAC or DIAC's Detention Services Provider. Over the past five years, the comprehensive response to illegal foreign fishing has had a positive effect which is demonstrated by the decreasing number of apprehensions and suspect sightings in Australia's northern waters. Due to the deterrence effect of Customs and Border Protection's air and sea presence in northern waters, foreign fishing vessels have retreated from, but remain just outside of, Australian waters. Surveillance shows that these vessels now make only shallow incursion into our waters. It should be noted that the decrease in apprehensions does not equate to a decrease in the risk associated with this threat. Any reduction in offshore surveillance and response in northern waters could see a return to large scale illegal foreign fishing in our waters. Customs and Border Protection, AFMA and DIAC all maintain a dedicated presence in the Torres Strait with staff primarily based on Thursday Island. Customs and Border Protection also maintains two temporary processing facilities on Horn Island and at Weipa for the processing of illegal foreign fishers located in the Torres Strait area. In addition, Commonwealth authorised fisheries officers employed by AFMA and Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation's Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol based on Thursday Island undertake duties to protect fisheries resources in the Torres Strait in line with the Torres Strait Treaty. Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol are contracted to provide compliance services on behalf of the Australian Government for Commonwealth fisheries matters in the Torres Strait as part of the Protected Zone Joint Authority. The Australian Government works cooperatively with Papua New Guinea including hosting annual fisheries bilateral meetings and has encouraged Papua New Guinea in its efforts to control illegal fishing. AFMA is currently facilitating a Fisheries Officer exchange program with Papua New Guinea's National Fisheries Authority (NFA). The capacity building project, which has been funded through AusAID, will provide opportunity for PNG Fisheries Officers to visit Australia and receive training in a range of fisheries compliance topics, including investigations, evidence collection and handling, brief preparation and legislation awareness. The Australian Government gave a banana boat to the NFA Fisheries Office in Daru which was delivered in April 2010 to assist their enforcement capability in the Torres Strait region. Recommendation 21 The committee recommends that the Australian Government provide the funding needed to expedite the charting of uncharted waters in the Torres Strait, with priority given to the waters between Saibai and Boigu and the area north of these islands. The committee recommends further that the Department of Defence provide the committee with periodic updates on the progress being made to chart the waters of the Torres Strait. Noted. Agreed. The charting of uncharted waters in the Torres Strait is a priority for Navy and this work is conducted in accordance with the availability of funding and assets. Navy manages the National Hydrographic Surveying and Charting Programme (Hydroscheme) to support Australia's national maritime transport infrastructure. A number of outstanding areas in the Torres Strait, including the southern coast of Papua New Guinea between Deliverance Island and Parama Island, which includes Saibai and Boigu islands, have been identified for survey activity and chart production in the current edition of Hydroscheme. The survey areas between Saibai and Boigu islands and north of these islands primarily consist of shallow waters and are suitable for Light Detecting and Ranging (LIDAR) operations. However, weather conditions in these areas restrict LIDAR operations to a period between September and January each year. The Australian Hydrographic Office estimated it would cost $7.2 million to contract commercial survey areas along the southern coast of Papua New Guinea. Navy has been unable to fund this activity from within its allocation due to higher priority Defence tasking taking precedence. While some work has already been undertaken by Navy assets in the area, completion by Navy alone is anticipated to take three years. Navy would expand its hydrographic programs, including through contractor support, should increased funding become available. The Department of Defence agrees to provide periodic updates to the committee on the progress made to chart the waters of the Torres Strait and proposes to do so annually. The current status of survey progress in Torres Strait is shown in Figure 1 at Appendix 1. Recommendation 22 The committee recommends that, in consultation with law enforcement and border security agencies working in the Torres Strait, the AFP review its presence in the region and consider whether it adequately meets the level of risk and community expectations. Noted. The AFP continually reviews its presence in the region. In doing this, the AFP confers with partner agencies at both state and federal level. The AFP is engaged with communities in the region. Such engagement allows for feedback on performance to ensure community expectations are being met. The level of risk associated with the border is met through a whole-of-government approach to law enforcement. As well as intelligence sharing through a range of fora (outlined below), the Thursday Island Office (TIO) has in the past 12 months responded successfully to a number of investigation referrals from partner agencies, as well as supporting joint agency responses to border incursions, namely border controlled drug seizures. The AFP TIO, which was established in 1998, comprises one sworn Resident Federal Agent rotated on a two to three year basis, one permanently locally engaged Special Member and an operational vessel. The AFP TIO was established in response to recommendations from the 1997 Prime Ministerial Review of Commonwealth Surveillance in Illegal or Illicit Cross Border Activity in the Torres Strait. The TIO provides an investigative and intelligence primary law enforcement presence in the Torres Strait to enforce Commonwealth law. The Resident Agent Thursday Island (RATI) and Special Member contribute to the Combined Intelligence Group (CIG) comprising representation from AFP, Queensland Police Service (QPS) and Australian Customs and Border Protection, which examine collective intelligence assessments of criminal threats in the region and develop operational responses to those threats. The CIG also receives additional intelligence from the Cairns Regional Intelligence Meeting (CRIM), which ensures that a larger geographic focus is taken when assessing the potential criminal threat level at the border. Papua New Guinea has also established its own CIG, which includes the AFP Senior Liaison Officer (SLO) in Port Moresby, with both groups meeting annually to facilitate the bilateral exchange of intelligence. The meeting aims to coincide with the annual Trans National Crime Conference (TNCC), which includes representation from both Australian and Papua New Guinea law enforcement agencies, to discuss transnational crime issues that affect both nations and the regional impact. TIO staff routinely participate in both DFAT meetings and council forums to engage communities on law enforcement issues, as well as visiting where possible the geographically remote communities via the TIO office vessel. TIO participates in Joint Cross Border Patrols (JCBP's) which run three times per year and provide opportunities for law enforcement agencies from Australia and Papua New Guinea to work in a collaborative manner, progressing opportunities for intelligence collection and sharing on illegal cross border movements. These patrols have realised an increase in community contacts and improved relationships with Papua New Guinean partner agencies. The JCBP's underpin and support the collaborative and whole-of-government approach to law enforcement in the Torres Strait. The patrols are central to the collection of intelligence by all agencies and are used by the CIG as the basis for targeting opportunities for Australian law enforcement agencies based in the Torres Strait. In 2010, the AFP SLO in Papua New Guinea obtained Law Enforcement Cooperation Program funding to provide an information technology platform to the National Criminal Intelligence Unit (NCIU) within the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC) based in Daru. This was to enhance the capacity of police in the Daru region to better communicate and pass criminal intelligence through to the PNG Transnational Crime Unit. The computer and internet connectivity proved immediately valuable with the sharing of intelligence on criminal matters. SLO at Post has visited Daru annually and provided assistance to RPNGC to attend Daru to investigate crimes of a transnational nature. SLO also facilitates, through LECP funding, the participation of RPNGC officers in Torres Strait regional patrolst. Should an event occur that requires a response beyond what can be provided by stationed AFP staff, additional resources would be deployed. Recommendation 23 The committee recommends that the Australian Government: place a high priority on implementing practical measures that need to be taken in the short term to assist local communities in the Torres Strait better deal with and, where possible, mitigate the problems caused by higher sea levels and extreme weather events; and review the need for an education and training program designed specifically to assist those communities in the region most at risk from the damaging effects of changes in climate. The intention would be to determine how best to assist people to remain productive members of their community in a changing environment. Noted. Noted. The Australian Government is aware of the problem of coastal erosion and inundation impacting housing, infrastructure and cultural sites in Torres Strait communities. While the Australian Government has been involved over a number of years in the provision of environmental health related infrastructure in the region, in cooperation with the Queensland Government, generally it is State and local governments that have lead responsibility. The Australian Government has a number of national funding programs that contribute to broader objectives such as disaster resilience, infrastructure and regional development. With regard to climate change risks, further work is needed to understand local circumstances to enable effective site-specific responses to coastal erosion and inundation. For example, in some instances past planning decisions about the location of houses and infrastructure in low lying areas have caused inundation to become a problem during king tides. Also, the ocean behaviour in the Torres Strait is quite complex and how it may change with climate change is not well understood. The Australian Government is helping to address key information gaps, including better projection of sea level heights, which will help inform robust land-use planning, and further assessment of erosion and inundation risks and identification of adaptation options where this work has not been done. All initiatives are being progressed in collaboration with the TSRA. The Australian Government does not have jurisdictional responsibility for implementation of community level education and training. However, the TSRA is in the process of identifying a number of communication needs and products to build community understanding of climate change and the potential adaptation responses. Ranger training under the Torres Strait Ranger program also provides rangers with skills that support emergency responses to weather and tidal impacts on communities. Local councils in conjunction with Emergency Management Queensland are involved in the ongoing training of SES volunteers to assist communities deal with the impacts of extreme weather events. Recommendation 24 The committee recommends that the Australian Government lend its full support to CSIRO's 'climate adaptation flagship' and ensure that adequate funding is made available to the institution to continue this initiative. Noted. CSIRO is currently planning research in partnership with the DSEWPaC's National Environmental Research Program and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. This research is likely to examine the nature of potential climate change impacts on natural resources and communities, potential development trajectories and viable adaptation strategies. Recommendation 25 In conjunction and closely connected with this initiative, the committee recommends that the Australian Government fund a study into socio-economic developments in the region, including in the South Fly District and their implications for water and food security and population movements in the area. Noted. The Australian Government recognises the value and importance of studies into the socio-economic developments of the Torres Strait region and their implications for water, food security and population movements in the area. A large volume of research has already been completed on socio-economic issues in the South Fly District. AusAID has found these existing studies to be of great value and comprehensive. An example of this research in the South Fly District can be found in ACIAR's Memorandum of Understanding with the OK Tedi–Fly River Development Corporation. Some if its current program of work addresses socioeconomic developments in the context of food security concerns in the region. For example, it is investigating ways of improving the capacity of women to more effectively engage in the vegetable and floriculture industries. Recommendation 26 The committee recommends that the Australian Government assist PNG to undertake complementary studies of climate change in Western Province by providing funding for research, opening up research opportunities for PNG researchers to work alongside Australian researchers in this area and for Australian researchers to work in PNG. For example, the Australian Government should consider offering scholarships or traineeships for PNG students to participate in CSIRO's climate adaption flagship. Noted. The Australian Government recognises the importance of collaborative research into the impacts of climate change in Papua New Guinea and provides support for such collaboration. Under the $328.2 million International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative (2008-2013), the Australian Government has provided $20 million for the Pacific Climate Change Science Program (PCCSP) to assist decision-makers and planners in Pacific Island countries and East Timor better understand how climate and oceans have changed and how they might change in the future . Activity under this program includes collaboration between researchers from Papua New Guinea and Australia . Researchers from the PNG National Weather Service (NWS) and Australian scientists are working together to better understand Papua New Guinea ' s changing climate. At the end of 2011 Australian researchers joined with NWS researchers in Papua New Guinea to discuss scientific findings . During this visit a climate projection software tool and a climate database management system was installed at the NWS . These will assist in the collection and analysis of information relating to the past and future climate of Papua New Guinea. Nationals of Papua New Guinea are eligible to apply for post-graduate scholarships under the Pacific Future Climate Leaders Program (2009-2013) . The $3 million Program provides adaptation-related capacity-building which includes support to the University of the South Pacific for community education programs, the development and delivery of climate change courses and scholarships. Recommendation 27 The committee recommends that ACIAR consider including climate change and the implications for coastal villages in PNG's southern region in its research priorities for PNG (traditional fishing, the conservation of species, including the dugong and turtle, and emergence and/or spread of exotic pests). Noted. AN ACIAR project, The early warning and drought preparedness for improving management of crop production in Papua New Guinea Project (ASEM/2006/129), which concluded in late 2010, demonstrated the potential for climate forecasting in some coastal areas of Papua New Guinea. This project retrieved long-term rainfall data for Papua New Guinea, examined its relationship with El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and investigated the utility of a drought warning tool to help maintain food security (sweet potato) and farm income (coffee). ACIAR undertook formal consultations with Papua New Guinea (government, private industry and NGOs) throughout 2011 to identify research priorities for 2012—2015. During the country consultation process, the following climate change related research areas were identified as high priority: research to enhance sustainable log supply chains and the efficiency of small to medium sized value-adding wood processing enterprises; research into models for enhancing and scaling up community engagement in tree growing and sustainable forest management; and research to facilitate efficient and equitable implementation of REDD+ and lessen impacts from climate change on forests and plantations. Recommendation 28 The committee recommends that the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs consult with his PNG counterpart about removing immediately any possible impediment to the Environment Management Committee and the JAC considering climate change in the Torres Strait. Noted. There are no known impediments to consideration of climate change in the Torres Strait by either the Environment Management Committee (EMC) or the JAC. The EMC is co-chaired by PNG and Australian national departments of environment. The EMC meets annually immediately preceding and at the same venue as the JAC and an EMC Working Group meets two to three times each year to progress EMC work intersessionally. The Torres Strait Coastal Management Committee, whose membership includes the PNG Department of Environment and Conservation, provides a report to the EMC. Representatives of PNG and Australian national departments of environment attend the JAC, together with members of other national agencies, state and provincial governments, and traditional representatives. Recommendation 29 The committee recommends that DAFF monitor developments with the PZJA during the coming twelve months. Further, at the end of that period, it consult with representatives from the Indigenous and non-Indigenous fishing sectors in the Torres Strait and with the Queensland Government to ascertain whether, in their view, the PZJA is making progress in remedying the problems identified in this report. The committee recommends that DAFF prepare a report for the minister for his/her consideration and for the report to be provided to the committee. Noted. Agreed. In 2008, the Protected Zone Joint Authority commenced a review of its administrative processes. In 2010, the Protected Zone Joint Authority Standing Committee agreed to the recommendations made by the review and many of these are now being put in place to streamline administration. For example, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority took over the secretariat role of the Protected Zone Joint Authority from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry towards at the end of 2010. This is expected to streamline administration and reduce duplication. Protected Zone Joint Authority agencies will continue to review processes and look for opportunities for improvement. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority undertakes routine consultation (through management advisory committees) with stakeholders from all sectors and this process offers opportunities for concerns to be raised. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority has prepared a review of Protected Zone Joint Authority administrative functions for submission to the Protected Zone Joint Authority during 2012. Recommendation 30 The committee recommends that the Australian Government look closely at the operation of the Customs facility on Saibai with a view to increasing the opportunities for greater integration of effort across all agencies engaged in the Torres Strait. The Committee recommends that the government establish a working group to consider the sharing arrangements for government assets in the Torres Strait with a view to identifying any areas for improvement, any real or potential points of conflict in the sharing of assets and how they could be resolved. The committee recommends that a copy of this assessment be provided to the committee for its consideration. Noted. Noted. Australian government agencies in the Torres Strait recognise the importance of close cooperation in order to be effective in carrying out their respective responsibilities. The Government notes that the Committee cited numerous situations where agencies support each other. Indeed, the Government notes the Committee's view that "evidence presented to the committee shows clearly that government agencies in the Torres Strait work together to ensure that their assets are used efficiently and shared as necessary". Well established mechanisms enable Commonwealth and State Government agencies to work with each other and with local communities as partners in the Torres Strait. Australian Government agencies will continue to work closely with each other and with Queensland Government agencies to maximise the opportunities for greater integration of effort across all agencies engaged in the Torres Strait, including in the use of built infrastructure which is very costly in the Torres Strait. Recommendation 31 The committee recommends that the Royal Australian Navy remain in close consultation with all relevant agencies working in the Torres Strait in order to arrive at a decision regarding a Navy presence there that would best support Australia's whole-of-government effort in the region. Noted. The Resident Naval Officer Thursday Island (RNOTI) organisation, comprising three personnel and one utility vessel, was established in 1988 to provide logistic support to Navy patrol boat activities in the region. Navy assessed the requirement for RNOTI against this primary function and determined that the patrol boat visit rate did not justify the permanent positioning of Navy personnel on Thursday Island. In 2009 there were nine visits with an average duration of approximately one day, and just eight visits with an average duration of approximately four hours in 2010. RNOTI's contribution to whole-of-government efforts in the region involved the limited use of its utility vessel to support border security operations and DFAT's Torres Strait Treaty awareness program. Customs and Border Protection agreed the support provided by RNOTI could be met through other Defence resources and the withdrawal of RNOTI would not affect border security operations. DFAT is using private charter vessels to maintain the Treaty awareness program now that RNOTI has been disestablished. Recommendation 32 The committee recommends that agencies take note of the observations about 'consultation overload' and make real efforts to dispel the notion that government officials fly in and out. The committee recommends that the Australian Government, the Queensland Government, the two local councils and the TSRA form a working group with the aim of developing a more streamlined and integrated approach to service delivery in the Torres Strait. Supported. Not supported. Commonwealth, Queensland agencies and local representatives will continue their efforts to strengthen consultative mechanisms and to develop a more streamlined and integrated approach to service delivery in the Torres Strait, while avoiding consultation overload. Following the amalgamation of Community Councils into three Local Government Councils in the Region, the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Area Leaders agreed to work together to reduce duplication in service delivery and achieve coordinated planning within the Torres Strait Region. The TSRA recognised there was a need to involve all levels of government to undertake planning and coordination of their respective agency's plans. Community consultations occurred in 2008 with community members and elected leaders, supported by teams with representatives from the TSRA, the Queensland Government's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services (ATSIS, at that time Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) and Local Government. These consultations formed the basis of the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Area Regional Plan 2009-2029 (the Regional Plan). In July 2009 the Regional Plan was co-signed by the TSRA Chairperson and Mayors of the Torres Shire Council (TSC), Torres Strait Island Regional Council (TSIRC) and Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council (NPARC). The Regional Plan requires that '…the region will establish an Integrated Planning and Service Delivery Framework. This Framework will be directed by a Steering Group of elected leaders and senior representatives from the three levels of Government. The primary purpose of the Steering Group will be to ensure that Integrated Planning and Service Delivery is undertaken to achieve effective implementation of this Regional Plan.' While this implementation statement from the Regional Plan predates the Torres Strait: Bridge and Border Report Recommendation 32, the intended outcomes are almost identical. The ISD actions described below are in response to the Regional Plan. A joint agency ISD Coordination Unit comprising TSRA and ATSIS staff, and a higher level ISD Project Steering Committee has been formed to drive and oversee the ISD Project and reform, including enhanced community engagement. To achieve an integrated approached to service delivery, seven Regional Plan Working Groups (RPWG), aligned to the key regional priorities and the Council of Australian Governments Building Blocks for Closing the Gap in disadvantage between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians were established. The RPWGs comprised representatives from the three levels of Government and included most agencies and organisations involved in service delivery in the region. The RPAGs were established in late 2009 to complete Service Delivery Mapping. This involved: identifying all current services in the region; highlighting gaps and duplications of services; prioritising community issues that need to be addressed; and identifying short, medium and long-term actions and Key Performance Indicators. Service Delivery Mapping was completed in 2011 and the RPWGs were disbanded in December of the same year. Upon completion of the Service Delivery Mapping, all government agencies and local elected leaders agreed to develop an Integrated Service Delivery Agreement that would deliver the outcomes of the Regional Plan. This whole-of-government document is currently in draft form and contains a list of action statements that government agencies can commit to, to address the identified gaps and duplications in service delivery and deliver the benefits that are identified in the Regional Plan. The ISD Agreement will commit agencies to deliver outcomes in an agreed timeframe. The aim is for the Agreement to be endorsed by high level representatives of the Queensland and Australian Governments. The ISD Coordination Unit and Steering Committee are currently working to formalise an Integrated Service Delivery Governance Framework for a coordinated approach to the delivery of services to communities in the region. The proposed Governance Framework comprises structured bodies which will be responsible for overseeing, coordinating, providing advice, actioning tasks, updating, monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the ISD Agreement. An ISD Governance Framework Discussion Paper has been distributed to stakeholders. Another output of the Service Delivery Mapping and 2008 Regional Plan consultations are Community Booklets for each of the 18 communities in the Torres Strait and a booklet for the Northern Peninsula Area. The purpose of the booklets is to: provide feedback to communities, and clearly outline the issues each community identified during the consultations in 2008 as well as what has been achieved or is in progress by 2011 (using a traffic light system); outline the services government agencies are currently providing to each community and the Region as a whole (a 'directory of services'); support the development and implementation of the ISD Agreement; and provide a baseline or 'snap shot' of each community in 2011, against which progress and change can be measured. Draft booklets are being validated with communities and will be published and distributed through community workshops during 2012. They will also be provided to service delivery agencies to help them in their planning and engagement with communities. Recommendation 33 The committee recommends that DFAT examine the working of the consultative mechanisms with a view to developing, in collaboration with their PNG counterparts, initiatives that would encourage and assist PNG representatives to attend and participate in all joint activities, build their capacity to contribute to decision making and importantly to follow through with agreed actions. Noted. DFAT will continue its efforts to strengthen consultative mechanisms and promote participation by PNG counterparts. The Joint Advisory Council, the Traditional Inhabitants Meeting, the Torres Strait Cross Border Health Issues Committee, the Environmental Management Committee and the Bilateral Fisheries Management Meeting are consultative mechanisms which involve both Australian and PNG officials. Representation is broad including from DFAT, the Western Province administration, PNG Government and local organisations. The annual Papua New Guinea-Australia Ministerial Forum is also used to foster greater participation by PNG counterparts. Papua New Guinea, and Western Province in particular, will continue to receive support to build capacity and involvement in the funding and administrative needs of the Treaty. Recommendation 34 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with the PNG Government, establish 'Torres Strait cooperation' as a standing item on the agenda for the annual bilateral ministerial meetings or forums. Noted. The 2008, 2009 and 2011 Papua New Guinea-Australia Ministerial Forums included the Torres Strait as an area of discussion. (There was no Forum in 2010.) Although no standing agenda exists for the Ministerial Forum, the Torres Strait will continue to be discussed as it is an important part of the bilateral relationship. Recommendation 35 The committee recommends that DFAT explore the reasons for the different perceptions held by traditional inhabitants and State and Commonwealth authorities on the effectiveness of arrangements under the Treaty and report on its findings. This report to include suggestions on ways to reconcile these differences. Noted. The Australian Government recognises that strong coordination between traditional inhabitants and government authorities is critical to ensuring a consistent perception of effective Treaty implementation. The different perceptions held on the effectiveness of arrangements under the Treaty reflect the complexity of implementation. There is a broad array of consultative mechanisms in place to foster participation and input by a range of stakeholders, including traditional inhabitants. Australian Government agencies will continue to work to ensure that the Traditional Inhabitants Meeting is as consultative as possible, with transparent outcomes ensuring effective implementation. Treaty liaison visits by DFAT, PNG and Queensland authorities continue to use and adapt effective communication techniques to ensure that all parties are familiar with Treaty enforcement initiatives. Recommendation 36 The committee recommends that the Australian Government recognise that the removal of derelict vehicles from the islands is a major environmental concern and one that requires close consideration . The committee believes that the Australian Government should take some responsibility for the safe disposal of vehicles purchased by Commonwealth officers for use in the Torres Strait. Noted. The Australian Government notes the concern expressed by the Torres Shire Council over the number of derelict vehicles on Torres Strait islands. The Australian Government agrees that the Commonwealth has a responsibility for the safe disposal of vehicles purchased by Commonwealth officers for use in the Torres Strait. The Australian Government is advised by relevant Commonwealth agencies that there would be very few, if any, Commonwealth vehicles that have been abandoned in the Torres Strait. Vehicles are primarily leased from Cairns and then returned to Cairns, or occasionally sold by tender. The broader issue of removal of derelict vehicles is a matter for the Torres Shire Council. Recommendation 37 The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider additional funding for Horn Island Airport especially in the areas related to safety, security and border control. Noted. The Australian Government notes the importance of Horn Island Airport as the primary airport in the Torres Strait, linking communities with each other and with the mainland. Over the last three years, the Australian Government, together with the Queensland Government and TSC has provided a total of $10.3 million in funding to Horn Island Airport for a range of safety, security and border control projects. In addition to the Australian Government's Regional Airport Funding Program, the government's Regional Passenger Screening Program (RPSP) funded security training for up to three officers at Horn Island Airport between 2006-07 and 2009-10. The Australian Government's Regional Development Australia Far North Queensland and Torres Strait (RDA FNQ&TS) Committee Regional Roadmap, which enables relevant local governments and communities to identify priority infrastructure investment requirements, was completed in July 2011. The Roadmap identifies an initiative for 2012 around developing a Cape York and Torres Strait integrated aviation model which should consider Horn Island Airport. The Australian Government through the Department of Regional Australia is continuing to engage in discussions regarding priorities with the RDA FNQ& TS, TSRA, TSIRC and the TSC. The Australian Government will continue to consider applications for funding under relevant programs. The Australian Government is progressing the outcomes of the Regional Roadmap discussions and the Regional Network Analysis. 1Fisheries Queensland is a service of the Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation 2Fisheries Queensland is a service of the Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Appendix 1 Current Status of Survey Progress in Torres Strait Available from the Senate Table Office A u stralian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report: Report 100 – Treaties tabled on 25 June 2008 (2): Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - August 2012 Recommendation 1 The Committee finds that it is in Australia's interests to secure global agreement to deliver deep cuts in emissions so as to stabilise concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million or lower by 2050. Agreed. The Commonwealth Government is continuing to make progress towards a new global climate change agreement that will apply to all countries, to be finalised by 2015 and enter into force from 2020. The Commonwealth Government agrees that an international outcome capable of stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (ppm CO2-e) or lower is in Australia's interests. At the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), countries agreed in the Copenhagen Accord to a global goal to hold the increase in global temperature below two degrees Celsius (broadly consistent with stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at 450ppm CO2-e). This was reiterated at the UNFCCC meetings in Cancun in 2010 and Durban in 2011. The Commonwealth Government has reflected this national interest objective as one of the objects of the Clean Energy Act 2011, which is: “to support the development of an effective global response to climate change, consistent with Australia's national interest, in ensuring that average global temperatures do not increase by more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.” Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that the Government be willing to adopt a policy setting to reduce Australia's emissions of greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050 in seeking agreement from other developed countries to also cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. Agreed. As one of the top 20 emitters, and the developed country with the highest per capita emissions, Australia must play its part in global efforts to reduce emissions over the long term. It is an object of the Clean Energy Act 2011 to take action directed towards meeting Australia's long-term target of reducing Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050. Central to Australia's plan to move to a clean energy future is the introduction of a carbon price that will cut pollution in the cheapest and most effective way and drive investment in clean energy sources such as solar, gas and wind. Under the carbon price, up to around 500 of the biggest polluters in Australia will be required to pay for their pollution, and every dollar raised will be used to support households and jobs, and to invest in clean energy and climate change programs. To assist households with price impacts, there will be tax cuts and increases in pensions, allowances and benefits. A significant tax reform has been achieved by the raising of the tax free threshold, which will mean that over one million individuals will no longer need to file a tax return. The Government is committed to supporting jobs and competitiveness as Australia moves to a clean energy future and has designed a range of measures for this purpose. In particular, $8.6 billion will be provided over the first three years of the carbon price through the Jobs and Competitiveness Program. This assistance will support jobs in industries that create a lot of carbon pollution but are constrained in their capacity to pass through costs in global markets. There will be a major expansion in support for renewable energy, including through a new $10 billion commercially oriented Clean Energy Finance Corporation that will be created to invest in renewable energy, low emissions and energy efficiency technologies. The Biodiversity Fund will invest around $946 million over the next six years to help land managers store carbon, enhance biodiversity and build greater environmental resilience across the Australian landscape. Improvements in energy efficiency will help households save money on their bills and contribute to our efforts to cut pollution. The Government continues to work with the international community to agree an effective global agreement in line with the goal to limit global average temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius, including appropriate contributions from other major emitters. Recommendation 3 The Committee recommends that the Government pursue the creation of an international carbon market as the primary mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Agreed. The Government is committed to improving and expanding international carbon markets, including the development of new market mechanisms. Australia supports transparent and environmentally rigorous international carbon markets that facilitate broad participation and maximise incentives to mitigate. Comprehensive and well-functioning market mechanisms will assist countries to commit to, and achieve, ambitious and effective greenhouse emission reduction goals by facilitating large-scale emissions abatement opportunities at least cost. Market mechanisms will also create incentives for the innovation and diffusion of low-carbon technologies and will also be an important means for mobilising long-term private sector finance to support mitigation action in developing countries. Carbon markets already exist in nations or regions with emissions trading schemes such as the European Union, New Zealand and across a number of states in the United States. Australia is also actively supporting developing countries to build their capacity to develop and access international carbon markets. This includes significant efforts to build developing countries' capacity to participate in a future market mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+) and $10 million to the World Bank administered Partnership for Market Readiness that aims to promote and pilot carbon market mechanisms in developing and emerging economies. Already nine countries (Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Indonesia, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine) have received funding to help them design and implement market-based schemes. The Government will consider future bilateral links with credible international schemes and has commenced formal discussions with New Zealand and the European Commission on potential arrangements to link emissions trading schemes at an appropriate point in the future. Australia and China have collaborated on practical action to reduce carbon emissions for many years and in March 2011 both countries agreed to strengthen this cooperation through sharing experiences with carbon pricing. China released its Climate Change White Paper in November 2011 in which it confirmed its commitment to establishing emission trading schemes as a key component of its actions to tackle climate change. Recommendation 4 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government take the following position to COP 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark: that the international community reach an agreement to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at around 450 parts per million or lower of carbon equivalent; that the agreement distribute responsibilities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across nations by requiring developed nations to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, with the residual reductions distributed fairly between developing and transitional nations; and that the agreement establish an international carbon market as the primary mechanism for achieving the necessary reductions. Noted. The key outcome from the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP 15) was the 'Copenhagen Accord'. The Accord, which was strongly supported by both developed and developing countries, was the first time there was agreement under the United Nations to: hold any increase in global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius specify, side by side, emissions targets for developed countries and actions to reduce emissions by developing countries a framework for national and international monitoring of what developed and developing countries will do considerable financing to support emissions reductions and adaptation in developing countries. The Accord includes developed-country commitments to collectively provide new and additional resources approaching USD 30 billion over the period 2010 to 2012. It also establishes a long-term goal for developed countries to jointly mobilise USD 100 billion a year by 2020, from a range of funding sources, in the context of meaningful actions to reduce emissions and transparency on implementation. The Accord also includes a decision to establish a Technology Mechanism to drive innovation and diffusion of clean technology, and agreement to the need to immediately establish a mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+). Australia formally registered its support for the Accord in Copenhagen. The text of the Accord can be found at: www.unfccc.int. Recommendation 5 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work through the Council of Australian Governments to establish a high quality integrated public transport system including light rail technology. Noted. The Commonwealth Government is currently working with states and territories to support the delivery of high quality integrated public transport. The Government has committed to providing more than $7.3 billion in funding to build a greater urban public transport rail network. This funding includes $365 million to support a light rail network for the Gold Coast and a major public transport rail initiative in every mainland state capital city. The Government is also undertaking a two phase strategic study into a high speed rail network on the east coast of Australia. The 2012-13 Budget included the announcement of the structure of the Nation Building II program. This includes a connecting people stream which will allocate funds to public transport. In the 2011-12 Budget, the Government announced Infrastructure Australia's forward work plan to support a long term and integrated approach to infrastructure investment, including the development of a public transport strategy to improve services standards and guide investments. Infrastructure Australia is working with states and territories to identify gaps in the required infrastructure to support this strategy. In addition, the Commonwealth Government is already supporting the establishment of high quality integrated public transport through its broader cities agenda. In 2009, the Government, through the Council of Australian Governments, agreed to a set of national criteria for capital city strategic planning which includes integrating transport and land use planning. In the National Urban Policy (NUP), announced during the 2011-12 Budget, the Government has signaled its commitment to building productive, sustainable and liveable cities. The NUP contains a number of objectives to deliver on these goals for cites, including integrated land use and infrastructure planning. Recommendation 6 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government endeavour to move to 'full carbon accounting' to ensure that emissions resulting from forestry activities as well as biosequestration are accurately accounted for. Agreed. The Commonwealth Government has implemented a comprehensive international reporting system for the estimation of emissions from the land sector. Australia's national inventory incorporates the National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS) which provides accounting for greenhouse gas emissions from land based activities. Emissions are estimated through a system that combines: thousands of satellite images to monitor land use and land use change across Australia since 1972 that are updated annually; monthly maps of climate information, such as rainfall, temperature and humidity; maps of soil type and soil carbon; databases containing information on plant species, land management, and changes in land management over time; and ecosystem modelling – the Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM). The inventory system undergoes ongoing development to improve the accuracy of the estimates that are incorporated into Australia's international accounting and reporting obligations. Accurate accounting of the emissions and removals of greenhouse gases from the land requires knowledge of the dynamics of carbon (for carbon dioxide and methane emissions) and nitrogen (for nitrous oxide emissions) in the landscape. The growth and life cycles of forests and agricultural crops, climate, soils, land cover change and land management are all important components of a comprehensive emissions accounting system. For Australia, like many countries, emissions from some activities in the land sector currently sit outside the Kyoto accounting framework. Australia is working with other countries to develop new international rules that will improve their environmental effectiveness, allow tracking of verifiable and real emissions from human activity and create incentives for countries to take action to reduce emissions from the land sector including through a broader range of forestry and biosequestration activities. Australia is working towards a post-2012 international climate change outcome that delivers broader coverage of the land sector with a view to moving towards comprehensive land-based accounting in the medium term as countries improve their ability to accurately monitor and account for emissions from the land sector. Recommendation 7 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, through both the Council of Australian Governments and ongoing work on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and in consultation with relevant Indigenous communities, explore ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from savannah burning. Agreed. The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) is a carbon offsets scheme being established by the Australian Government to provide new economic opportunities for farmers, forest growers and landholders and help the environment by reducing carbon pollution. The Government is working with Indigenous and other stakeholders, industry, state government officials and technical experts to develop offset methodologies for CFI abatement activities that are likely to have significant uptake. Under the CFI, landholders and land managers, including Indigenous Australians, will be able to generate carbon credits for activities that reduce emissions or increase the removal and storage of greenhouse gases on the land. These activities include improved savanna fire management, feral animal management and increasing carbon storage in soils and vegetation. Offset projects established under the CFI will need to apply methodologies approved by the Government. Methodologies will contain the detailed rules for implementing and reporting on specific abatement activities. An independent expert committee, the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee (DOIC), has been established to assess methodologies proposed under the CFI and provide recommendations to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency on their approval. A methodology for savanna burning was approved on 22 February 2012. The methodology provides guidance for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions through changed fire management practices across savannas in the tropical north of Australia. Land managers can reduce the carbon pollution from savanna fires by moving to an early dry season burning regime that can reduce fuel loads and create fire breaks in the landscape. This decreases the frequency and extent of fires in the long term, reducing carbon pollution. The methodology was developed by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in consultation with Indigenous stakeholders and CSIRO scientists. It is specifically tailored to align with the aims of Indigenous landholders and land managers. Projects that reduce emissions from savanna burning in accordance with this methodology will be eligible to generate credits under the CFI. The Government is committed to supporting the participation of Indigenous Australians in carbon markets through the CFI. On 10 July 2011, the Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, announced the Clean Energy Future plan. The plan includes $22 million over five years for the ongoing Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund, which will assist Indigenous communities to benefit from the CFI. Funding will be provided for specialists to work with Indigenous communities on carbon farming projects (administered by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities) and funding for research and reporting tools for CFI methodologies (administered by Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) will create further opportunities for Indigenous Australians. In 2008 the Government also committed $10 million over four years for the Indigenous Emissions Trading scheme, under the Caring for our Country initiative to provide opportunities for Indigenous participation in emerging carbon markets. This commitment primarily focused on Indigenous fire management in northern Australia that utilise traditional, mosaic style burning practices. This initiative is jointly delivered by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Recommendation 8 The Committee recommends that promising renewable energy technologies which are not cost-competitive at the moment, including geothermal, solar thermal, large scale photovoltaic and wave energy, are further supported. Agreed. Renewable energy generation will play an important role in reducing Australia's greenhouse emissions, and the Australian Government has introduced a number of initiatives that will significantly increase investment in renewable energy. The Government set a Renewable Energy Target (RET) of 20 per cent of Australia's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. The Australian Parliament passed legislation in June 2010 to implement the enhanced RET scheme. From January 2011, the RET scheme has operated in two parts – the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES) and the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET), providing greater certainty for households, large-scale renewable energy projects and installers of small-scale renewable energy systems. The Government is substantially enhancing its support for innovation investment in renewable energy as a central element of its plan for a clean energy future. Initiatives which complement a carbon price and the RET scheme include: a new $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to invest in the commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency and low emissions technologies, as well as manufacturing businesses that produce the required inputs. The CEFC will be independent from the Government and will play a vital role in unlocking significant new private investment in the clean energy sector through a variety of funding tools; and a new independent Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) has been legislated. From 1 July 2012 ARENA will streamline and coordinate the administration of $3.2 billion in existing support for research and development, demonstration and commercialisation of renewable energy and enabling technologies. On 17 April 2012, the Government publicly released the expert review's report on the CEFC and announced that it supported all recommendations. These recommendations formed the basis of enabling legislation, which was introduced into the Parliament on 23 May 2012. The CEFC will commence investment operations from 1 July 2013. The CEFC will use the disciplines of a commercial organisation in its investment assessments, while operating to achieve a public policy outcome and recognising the positive externalities flowing from investments. In practice, this will involve assessing investment proposals on a case-by-case basis, applying a commercial filter and using a range of tailored financing instruments. ARENA will bring together in one independent statutory agency within the Resources, Energy and Tourism portfolio a range of initiatives previously administered separately through a range of bodies, including the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy and the Australian Solar Institute. Around $1.7 billion in uncommitted funding from the range of consolidated programs will be available for the ARENA Board to direct investment in new renewable energy projects between now and 2020. The Government has a strong record of delivering support to our renewable sector and ensuring that Australians get value for money on their investments, such as through the Round 1 Solar Flagships program. The establishment of ARENA will build on this record. Continued strong investment in renewable energy technology research and development is fundamental for Australia's transition to cleaner baseload energy sources. Government support to fill market gaps and drive down costs will help us to achieve this transition. ARENA will have an independent decision-making Board appointed by the Government. ARENA will also have a Chief Executive Officer appointed by the Minister for Resources and Energy on the recommendation of the ARENA Board. In October 2011 the Government announced the appointment of Ms Jillian Broadbent AO to chair an expert review panel to advise on the design of the CEFC. Recommendation 9 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a coordinating mechanism through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to ensure integration and coordination of greenhouse gas reduction actions across all States, Territories and levels of government, including local and State government planning processes. Agreed. In February 2011 COAG agreed as part of its reform of the Ministerial Council System to establish a Select Council on Climate Change (SCCC). The SCCC was formally established in January 2012 and is undertaking specific reform tasks related to tackling climate change, including coordinating energy efficiency activities, developing a national approach to assessing the complementarity of existing and future climate change measures with the carbon price mechanism, developing national adaptation priorities and work plans, providing a forum for the Commonwealth to engage with other COAG members on the implementation of the Clean Energy Future plan, and determining whether a permanent body to discuss ongoing joint issues related to climate change is required. The SCCC held its first meeting on 4 May 2012. Further, on 13 April 2012, COAG agreed to the establishment of an interjurisdictional task force, chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Deregulation (Commonwealth) and consisting of officials from First Ministers and Treasury portfolios, to progress six priority areas for major reform to lower costs for business and improve competition and productivity. The rationalisation of carbon reduction and energy efficiency schemes was one of these priority areas. Recommendation 10 The Committee recommends that the Government direct the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) to review the Building Code of Australia (BCA) to ensure that it better provides for energy efficiency standards suitable for varied climate zones. Noted. The Commonwealth Government does not have the authority to direct the ABCB. The ABCB is a Commonwealth, State and Territory body operating under an Intergovernmental Agreement. It is accountable to the Building Ministers' Forum, and the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The Commonwealth Government has referred this recommendation to the ABCB for its consideration. Since 2003, the BCA has included minimum energy efficiency standards designed to account for Australia's varied climate zones. The BCA currently provides variations for eight different climate zones in Australia. These climate zones are based on a classification scheme developed by the Bureau of Meteorology. The number of climate zones was kept to a minimum for simplicity, but are of sufficient number to distinguish between appropriate design responses in different climates. House energy rating software accredited for use under the BCA, further divides these climate zones into 69 climate regions. The use of ventilation for passive cooling in warmer climates is encouraged. Second generation house energy rating software (adopted in 2007) is much better able to model the effects of ventilation. However, increasing rates of air-conditioner ownership indicate growing expectations for higher levels of comfort. To account for this trend, the simulation software assumes that air-conditioning will be installed at some stage, even if it is not installed originally. This ensures the house can adequately cope with heating and cooling loads should an air-conditioner be installed at any point. While the ABCB produces and maintains the BCA as a nationally consistent set of technical provisions, each State and Territory is ultimately responsible for the building regulations that apply within their jurisdiction. This includes how climatic variations are accounted for. Some jurisdictions have introduced variations to the BCA energy efficiency provisions to address climate zone issues. For example, through the Queensland Development Code, additional star rating concessions are given for the provision of outdoor living areas to account for climate zones in that State. Since May 2011, the BCA has comprised volumes one and two of the National Construction Code. Recommendation 11 The Committee recommends that the Government investigate using revegetation as an adaptation mechanism to reduce temperature and increase rainfall in applicable parts of Australia. Noted. The Government does not consider that the weight of scientific evidence is strong enough at this time to justify an investigation into revegetation as a means to manipulate regional climate. Recommendation 12 The Committee recommends that the Government conduct an inquiry into adaptation strategies for climate change. This inquiry should include consideration of projected sea-level rise due to climate change and its impact upon Australian coastal communities and neighbouring countries. Noted. In November 2010 the Government tabled a comprehensive response to the House of Representatives' Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts report Managing our Coastal Zone in a Changing Climate: the time to act is now (October 2009) which addressed issues of climate change adaptation strategies for Australia's coast, including consideration of projected sea level rise. The Productivity Commission is also undertaking an inquiry into regulatory and policy barriers to effective climate change adaptation. In undertaking the inquiry, the Commission will identify any specific barriers that inhibit effective adaptation to unavoidable climate change, and high priority options for addressing those barriers. The Commission is to: examine the costs and benefits of the options to address those barriers where it is feasible to do so, including a 'no change' (maintaining the status quo) option assess the role of markets (including insurance markets) and non-market mechanisms in facilitating adaptation, and the appropriateness of government intervention. The Commission will produce both a draft and final report, due by September 2012, and will hold public hearings. A draft report was released on 27 April 2012. Government Response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Report: Donor Conception Practices in Australia Introduction The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee's (Senate Committee) report Donor Conception Practices in Australia released on 9 February 2011. This report into the complex and often emotive issue of donor conception is an important document that will assist the Australian Government in extending its understanding of the changing experience of many Australian families. The number of donors, donor recipients and donor conceived children living in our community is growing and this report is an invaluable reflection on the issues they face, particularly in relation to knowing their biological history. The report highlighted several areas of concern within the Australian community about the regulation of donor conception practices. Many of the recommendations in the report identified a desire for nationally consistent legislation regulating donor conception. The report also addressed concerns about consanguinity, importation of embryos and payments made to donors. The report also provided a comprehensive analysis of the record keeping practices of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) service providers. It recommended that there was a need for a nationally consistent method of maintaining and sharing information about donors, donor recipients and donor conceived individuals that will enable those concerned to access information, where appropriate, about their genetic history and relationships. The Australian Government has reviewed the report in depth and has considered all of the recommendations in great detail. The Australian Government is grateful to those members of the Australian community that dedicated their time to assisting the Senate with their inquiry and acknowledges the valuable input of the Australian community through their submissions to the Senate Committee. The Australian Government supports the need for the interests of donor conceived individuals to be protected but acknowledges that there is no constitutional power that would support a Commonwealth scheme to legislate comprehensively in this area. States and Territories are responsible for enacting legislation regulating donor conception practices in Australia. For many years the Australian Government has recognised the need for improvements in the regulation of assisted reproductive technology, particularly as the number of affected individuals in Australian society increases. The Australian Government has shown leadership in this area by establishing and continuing to support the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Australian Health Ethics Committee (AHEC), which in turn provides ethical guidelines on the use of ART in clinical practice and research. As early as 1996, the AHEC took a leading role, developing guidelines stating that ART service providers should obtain accreditation by a recognised body and that such accreditation should require compliance with those guidelines. The 1996 guidelines also strongly recommended that States and Territories that had not already done so should enact legislation to regulate ART. These guidelines have been consistently reviewed since that time and have resulted in the very comprehensive Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research 2007 (NHMRC ART Guidelines) that provide a high level of guidance to the ART industry today. The NHMRC ART Guidelines represent a significant body of work and dedication of resources by the Australian Government to assist with the protection of the interests of donors, donor recipients and donor conceived children. The NHMRC ART Guidelines are aligned with many of the recommendations contained in the Senate report. They provide a nationally consistent basis upon which other States and Territories may wish to develop regulation in this area. The Australian Government supports the use of the NHMRC ART Guidelines by States and Territories contemplating regulation of donor conception practices. In addition, there has already been a national accreditation scheme developed in Australia that supports compliance with the NHMRC ART Guidelines. Although States and Territories may use an accreditation or licensing system unique to their jurisdiction to regulate the ART industry, a robust accreditation system that is independently reviewed and assessed has already been established by the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee (RTAC). RTAC was established in 1987 by the Fertility Society of Australia, the peak body representing doctors, scientists, nurses, researchers, consumers and counsellors involved in reproductive medicine. The RTAC accreditation scheme was developed by a combined technical committee comprising members from the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ) and RTAC in accordance with international and domestic standards for bodies that operate product certification systems. To obtain accreditation through RTAC, an ART service provider must obtain RTAC certification from an independent third party JAS-ANZ-accredited certification body, which measures the organisations compliance with the RTAC Code of Practice for Assisted Reproductive Technology Units (the RTAC Code of Practice). The certification body makes recommendations to RTAC about whether RTAC should grant a licence. The RTAC Code of Practice requires as part of its compulsory criteria that an ART service provider must comply with the NHMRC ART Guidelines. In States and Territories that have not passed legislation requiring ART providers to obtain an RTAC licence, many ART service providers voluntarily participate in the accreditation scheme which requires them to comply with the NHMRC ART Guidelines and the RTAC Code of Practice. Where States and Territories have passed legislation, ART service providers may often also be compelled to comply with State based licensing schemes. To date, Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia have enacted legislation that specifically regulates donor conception practices. States and Territories looking to regulate the ART industry have the opportunity to make use of two significant national resources. One supported by the Australian Government through the development of the NHMRC ART Guidelines and the other by the Fertility Society of Australia, through the RTAC Code of Practice and the development of a robust accreditation system. The Australian Government encourages States and Territories, who have not already done so, to implement a legislative framework that will mandate compliance with the established accreditation and regulatory scheme. Using the RTAC accreditation process and the NHMRC ART Guidelines as the basis for legislative frameworks will ensure consistent approaches to donor conception across Australia. States and Territories also have the option of ensuring compliance with the regulatory framework through making provisions in their legislation for offences and penalties for ART service providers who do not comply with the national standards. In addition, individual Australians who are involved in ART procedures can assist in the protection of their interests and those of their donor conceived children by using the services of accredited facilities. In cases of non-compliance by accredited ART service providers, individuals are encouraged to avail themselves of the proper channels for making health related complaints, by contacting the Health Complaints Commissioner or equivalent in the relevant State or Territory. The Australian Government notes the benefits to the continuing refinement and improvement of the NHMRC ART Guidelines, through NHMRC's policy of revising guidelines every five years. This will ensure that the national standard in Australia continues to provide a high level of protection for Australians who are conceived through the use of ART technologies. The Australian Government thanks the Senate Committee for the outstanding contribution their report provides to the development of policy on donor conception. Government response to recommendations Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that jurisdictions which do not already have legislation in place, namely Queensland, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, and the Australian Capital Territory, should, as a matter of priority, establish legislation to regulate donor conception in those jurisdictions. The Australian Government supports this recommendation. This recommendation is consistent with recommendations published by the NHMRC in the 2007 NHMRC ART Guidelines. States and Territories are responsible for the enactment of legislation in their respective jurisdictions. The Australian Government encourages those States and Territories that do not currently have legislation regulating donor conception practices to establish such legislation. The Australian Government also supports consistency of State and Territory legislation. Consistent legislation will ensure that donors, donor recipients and donor conceived individuals will have the same access to information regardless of which jurisdiction they are in. It will also discourage the practice of forum shopping for persons who wish to donate or who wish to use ART services. The NHMRC ART Guidelines developed by the NHMRC and the RTAC accreditation system provide a sound basis for State and Territory legislation. Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the Australian Government pursue all available policy and political options, including through the Council of Australian Governments and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, to ensure that nationally consistent legislation relating to donor conception is developed as a matter of priority. The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Australian Government does not have constitutional power to legislate comprehensively in this area to ensure that legislation is nationally consistent. The Australian Government supports consistency of regulation of donor conception practices across Australia and has been working to progress the issue with States and Territories. The issue of donor conception laws has been a stand-alone agenda item on the Standing Council of Law and Justice (formerly the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General) since April 2009. As identified in the Senate report, in 2002 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed that RTAC-accreditation should provide the basis for a nationally consistent approach to the oversight of ART clinical practice and research in Australia. To be accredited an ART service provider must obtain an RTAC licence, which requires compliance with the RTAC Certification Scheme and the RTAC Code of Practice which were last revised in October 2010. The RTAC Code of Practice, in turn, requires compliance with the NHMRC ART Guidelines. The NHMRC ART Guidelines and RTAC accreditation system provide a nationally consistent basis upon which States and Territories who have not done so, may wish to develop regulation in this area. The NHMRC ART Guidelines provide ethical guidance, in line with many of the issues raised by the recommendations in the Senate report, to clinical practitioners who provide ART services. The NHMRC ART Guidelines address issues such as the provision of counselling services to participants, collection and dissemination of information and consent. The RTAC Code of Practice ensures that the clinical delivery of ART services is as risk free and as of high quality as possible. The Australian Government and the Fertility Society of Australia have demonstrated leadership and have encouraged States and Territories for many years, to give legislative force to the NHMRC ART Guidelines through the RTAC accreditation system to improve consistency of donor conception regulation across jurisdictions. Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that any nationally consistent legislation should include, at a minimum: a prohibition on donor anonymity; a limit on the number of families a donor is able to assist; rights of access by donor conceived individuals to identifying and non identifying information about their donor and siblings; and protection for the welfare and interests of donor conceived children. The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Australian Government encourages States and Territories to use the RTAC accreditation system and the NHMRC ART Guidelines as a basis for consistent donor conception regulation. At paragraph 6.1, the NHMRC ART Guidelines require ART service providers to ensure that a 'donor has consented to the release of identifying information about himself or herself to the persons conceived using his or her gametes.' At paragraph 6.3, the NHMRC ART Guidelines require ART service providers to consider a number of relevant factors to limit the number of families to which gametes from one donor can be provided. Part 6 of the NHMRC ART Guidelines recognises entitlements to information for donors, donor recipients and donor conceived individuals. The NHMRC ART Guidelines provide guidance to ART service providers about balancing this entitlement with respecting the privacy of all persons involved in ART procedures. The NHMRC ART Guidelines are designed to protect the welfare and interests of donor conceived children in a variety of situations and are a suitable basis for the development of nationally consistent legislation by States and Territories. Recommendation 4 In the context of the development of nationally consistent legislation relating to donor conception, the committee recommends that the Australian Government and state and territory governments give consideration to how private donor conception arrangements can best be regulated to ensure the rights of donors, recipients, and donor conceived individuals are appropriately protected. The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Australian Government does not have constitutional power to regulate private arrangements. The Australian Government encourages States and Territories to consider the regulation of private arrangements in the context of reviewing their legislative framework involving donor regulation. The Australian Government also encourages individuals considering becoming a donor or a donor recipient to protect their interests and the interests of their donor conceived children by engaging the services of an ART service provider who holds an RTAC licence. Recommendation 5 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the Standing Committee of Attorneys General, do everything possible to ensure the establishment, as a matter of priority, of a national register of donors, and that such a national register should also include information about donor conceived individuals. The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The Australian Government does not have constitutional power to comprehensively legislate to create a national register, absent a referral of power from the States. Some States and Territories have already established donor registers in their jurisdictions and the Australian Government encourages States and Territories that have not yet done so to also establish registers. The Australian Government has worked with States and Territories through the Standing Council of Law and Justice (formerly the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General) since 2009 to facilitate national consistency between States and Territories and provide certainty for donors and donor conceived individuals and their families, but ultimately this is a matter for the States and Territories. Recommendation 6 The committee recommends that a national register established by the Australian Government and State and Territory governments should have a particular focus on: security arrangements; privacy protections; and a clear articulation of the role of the body administering the register. See Response to Recommendation 5. The Australian Government supports the principle of the recommendation that registers established by State and Territory governments should have a focus on security arrangements, privacy protections and a clear articulation of the role of the body administering the register. Recommendation 7 While the committee strongly recommends the establishment of a national donor conception register, if this is not achieved, the committee recommends that each state and territory should put in place their own centralised register. The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle but notes that this is a matter for States and Territories. Recommendation 8 The committee recommends that, in the establishment of state and territory central registers, consistency in approach to the granting of access to information held on those registers should be a matter of priority. The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle but notes that this is a matter for States and Territories. Recommendation 9 The committee recommends that a central register, either in the form of a single national register or a separate register in each state and territory, should operate according to the following principles regarding access to information: donor conceived individuals should be able to access identifying information about their donor, once the donor conceived person reaches 18 years of age, or such younger age as agreed by all states and territories; donors should be able to access identifying information about individuals conceived as a result of their donation only with the consent of the donor conceived person; donor conceived individuals should be able to access identifying information about their siblings only with the consent of those siblings; and donors, donor conceived individuals, and recipient parents, as well as close relatives of donors or donor conceived individuals, should be able to access non-identifying information about the donor or donor conceived person, as applicable (provided that where a donor conceived individual seeks information, the person is at least 16 years of age, or such younger age as agreed by all states and territories) The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle but notes that this is a matter for States and Territories. The NHMRC ART Guidelines are broadly consistent with this recommendation. The NHMRC ART Guidelines provide at: paragraph 6.10 that gamete recipients may access details of past medical history, family history and any genetic test results that are relevant to the future health of the person born (or any subsequent offspring of that person) and the recipient of the donation; details of the physical characteristics of the gamete donor; and the number and sex of persons conceived using the gametes donated by the same gamete donor. paragraph 6.11 that ART service providers must supply identifying information on request to donor conceived individuals over the age of 18 years, paragraph 6.12 that donors can access only non-identifying information about their offspring, and paragraph 6.13 that identifying information about siblings can be provided only with the consent of those siblings. The Australian Government encourages States and Territories to pass legislation mandating ART service providers to hold a valid RTAC licence, which will ensure that the principles regarding access to information contained in this recommendation and reflected in the NHMRC ART Guidelines are given legislative force. Recommendation 10 The committee recommends that, if after further consideration by the states and territories of the issue of retrospectivity, registers will not be retrospective, a national voluntary register or separate register in each state and territory should be established to allow donors who previously donated anonymously to agree to have their information recorded and disclosed to any individuals conceived as a result of their donation. The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle but notes that this is a matter for States and Territories. Recommendation 11 The committee recommends that donors in private arrangements be encouraged to have their information recorded and disclosed to any individuals conceived as a result of their donation on a national voluntary register or separate register if such registers are established in each state and territory. The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle but notes that this is a matter for States and Territories. Recommendation 12 The committee recommends that any voluntary registers incorporate a DNA databank, to enable donors and donor conceived individuals to have their details placed on the register for possible matching, in circumstances where records relating to their identities have been destroyed. The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle but notes that this is a matter for States and Territories. Recommendation 13 The committee recommends that the states and territories jointly fund a campaign to widely publicise the establishment of either a national voluntary register or separate voluntary registers in each state and territory. The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle but notes that this is a matter for States and Territories. Recommendation 14 The committee recommends that the Australian Government review, within a period of two years after this report, the current regulatory framework for overseeing compliance by clinics and medical practitioners with the National Health and Medical Research Council Guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research, with a focus on: whether the regulatory framework is adequate to ensure compliance with the guidelines; whether sanctions applied to clinics for failure to comply with their obligations under the guidelines are sufficient; and whether a more comprehensive regulatory framework is required. The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The NHMRC has a legislated role to develop ethical guidance but it does not oversee compliance of the NHMRC ART Guidelines by ART clinics. Some States and Territories have used the NHMRC ART Guidelines in different ways in their own legislative regimes to provide best practice models and standards by which clinic accreditation can be assessed. The RTAC accreditation scheme provides a basis for a nationally consistent approach to the oversight of ART clinical practice in Australia. To obtain an RTAC licence, an ART provider must comply with the RTAC Certification scheme and the RTAC Code of Practice which in turn requires compliance with the NHMRC ART Guidelines. To obtain RTAC Certification, ART service providers must apply to a JAS-ANZ accredited independent certification body who will measure compliance with the RTAC Code of Practice. The independent certification body will make recommendations to RTAC about issuing an RTAC licence to the ART service provider. ART service providers are audited annually by a JAS-ANZ independent certification body for their compliance with the RTAC Code of Practice. Criteria considered critical under the RTAC Code of Practice, which includes compliance with the NHMRC ART Guidelines, are reviewed during this annual visit. In addition every three years further criteria considered to be part of good practice for ART service providers is also audited. If the independent certification body discovers non-compliance with the RTAC Code of Practice by an ART service provider they may withdraw or suspend RTAC certification. RTAC has responsibility for the issuing, suspending and withdrawal of RTAC licences and may order additional audits of an ART service provider if an exceptional circumstance has arisen. The Australian Government encourages States and Territories to enact legislation that mandate participation by ART service providers in the RTAC accreditation system. The removal of an RTAC licence will have a significant impact on ART service providers who are unable to continue to provide ART services without such a licence. It is not the role of the NHMRC or the Australian Government to monitor compliance with the RTAC Code of Practice and the Australian Government does not have constitutional power to legislate for a comprehensive scheme to penalise non-compliance by ART service providers. The Australian Government encourages the Australian public to use ART service providers who participate in the RTAC accreditation; consistent with this, Medicare benefits are only paid to RTAC accredited providers. It is a matter for States and Territories whether additional penalties for non-compliance other than the withdrawal of an RTAC licence are warranted. In 2007 the Australian Government reviewed the regulation of reproductive tissues in the ART sector as part of the proposed Class 1 Framework for regulating solid organs and reproductive tissues (now the Biologicals Regulatory Framework). This review recognised that the 'ART sector already has an effective, cross-jurisdictional system of regulatory oversight in place through the RTAC accreditation process'. At the Australian Health Ministers' Conference (AHMC) meeting on 22 July 2008, Health Ministers agreed that un-manipulated reproductive tissues should not be regulated by the Commonwealth through the Therapeutic Goods Administration under its proposed Class 1 Framework for human cellular and tissue therapies 'because the Assisted Reproductive Technology Sector is already coherently and consistently managed'. In view of the established compliance scheme and the review conducted in 2007, the Australian Government considers that a review of the current regulatory framework by the Australian Government is not warranted at this time. However, it is open to State and Territory Governments to provide a legislative framework that would ensure compliance with the NHMRC ART Guidelines, make provision for legal sanctions for ART service providers that failed to comply and offer greater certainty to individuals involved in ART procedures. Recommendation 15 If, following the review as set out in Recommendation 14, it is considered that the current regulatory framework for clinics and medical practitioners undertaking assisted reproductive technology procedures is not sufficient, the committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the Council of Australian Governments and the Standing Committee of Attorneys General, work with the state and territory governments to develop a more comprehensive regulatory framework. See response to Recommendation 14. Recommendation 16 Regardless of the outcome of the review described in Recommendations 14 and 15, the committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with the Fertility Society of Australia, create a review mechanism (for example, an Ombudsman-type mechanism or health complaint commission), that can be accessed by donor conceived individuals and parties undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedures, to investigate and address complaints against clinics, including when they fail to comply with their obligations under the National Health and Medical Research Council Guidelines or relevant legislation and regulation. The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The Australian Government notes that States and Territories are responsible for regulating donor conception practices in their jurisdictions. They are therefore responsible for conferring complaint handling responsibilities on their own Ombudsman-type mechanisms to investigate complaints against clinics and their compliance with the NHMRC ART Guidelines and relevant legislation and regulation. Every ART service provider that is accredited under the RTAC accreditation scheme must appoint a medical director who is responsible for the clinical management of the organisation. The medical director is required to be a recognised specialist gynaecologist or physician. The Medical Board of Australia, supported by Boards in each State and Territory, is responsible for investigating and handling complaints against medical practitioners, with other health practitioners similarly regulated by their respective boards. Where individuals believe their personal information has been disclosed or handled in breach of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) or the National Privacy Principles 1988 contained in Schedule 3 to that Act, they may lodge a complaint with the Federal Privacy Commissioner. Recommendation 17 The committee recommends that, except in circumstances where the parties have a particular ethnic background and it is difficult to obtain gametes or embryos from a person with the same ethnic background (or in any other similar circumstances), the importation of gametes and embryos from overseas donors should be banned in Australia. The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The NHMRC ART Guidelines do not currently support the proposed ban on the importation of gametes from overseas. See Recommendation 19. In regards to the importation of an embryo from overseas, section 20 of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 makes it an offence to import, export or treat a woman with a prohibited embryo. Subsection 20(4)(b) defines a "prohibited embryo" as including "a human embryo created outside the body of a woman, unless the intention of the person who created the embryo was to attempt to achieve pregnancy in a particular woman". Thus, if an embryo were to be created overseas without prior determination that a specific woman would receive the embryo, importation of, or treatment of a woman with such an embryo would be prohibited under this Act. However, the importation and subsequent treatment of a woman with an embryo created overseas for that particular woman would be permitted under this Act (provided the embryo was not otherwise a prohibited embryo). Recommendation 18 If a ban on the importation of gametes and embryos from overseas is not possible, the committee recommends that any gametes and embryos imported into Australia from overseas donors undergo the same requirements and procedures for use in donor conception as gametes and embryos donated in Australia, including screening and counselling requirements. The Australian Government supports this recommendation. Paragraph 6.2 of the NHMRC ART Guidelines are consistent with this recommendation and currently state that 'treatment in Australia using either gametes donated overseas or embryos created from gametes donated overseas must not take place unless all the relevant conditions of these guidelines and any relevant legislation have been fulfilled.' Recommendation 19 The committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake a review of the National Health and Medical Research Council Guidelines to specifically address the rights of access to information of donor conceived individuals conceived with the use of gametes and embryos imported from overseas. The Australian Government supports this recommendation. Paragraphs 6.1, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12 and 6.13 of the NHMRC ART Guidelines acknowledge the right to information of all those involved in ART procedures. The NHMRC ART Guidelines provide that clinics 'must not use donated gametes in reproductive procedures unless the donor has consented to the release of identifying information about himself or herself to the persons conceived using his or her gametes.' Paragraph 7.1 identifies a similar right for donor conceived persons to knowledge about genetic parents and the existence of any genetically related siblings. Paragraph 6.2 of the NHMRC ART Guidelines states that 'treatment in Australia using either gametes donated overseas or embryos created from gametes donated overseas must not take place unless all the relevant conditions of these guidelines and any relevant legislation have been fulfilled.' The timing of the review of the NHMRC ART Guidelines is somewhat contingent on the government response to the outcomes of the Heerey Review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 (Cth) and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (Cth) which is required under legislation. The review was submitted to COAG and was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 7 July 2011. The Government response is expected in due course. Recommendation 20 The committee recommends that the Australian Government and state and territory governments work together, including through the Council of Australian Governments and other appropriate national forums, to agree to a nationally consistent and permanent long-term solution to the management of records relating to donor conception, to ensure that records which identify donors, donor recipients, and donor conceived offspring, are appropriately preserved. The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle but notes that this is a matter for States and Territories. The management of health records is governed by State and Territory legislation. Recommendation 21 Until such time as Recommendation 20 is implemented, the committee recommends that a temporary moratorium be placed on the destruction of all records held by government agencies, doctors, clinics, and assisted reproductive technology providers that identify donor conception treatment procedures undertaken by donors and donor recipients. The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle but notes that the regulation of health services and health records including data collection and mandatory record keeping requirements is a matter for States and Territories. Recommendation 22 The committee recommends that the prohibition on payments for donations of sperm, oocytes or embryos in Australia should be maintained. The Australian Government supports this recommendation. Under the NHMRC ART Guidelines, commercial trading in human gametes and/or the use of direct or indirect inducements must not be undertaken. Paragraph 6.5 of the NHMRC ART Guidelines states that 'gamete donation must be altruistic'. Under subsections 21(1) and (2) of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 (Cth): (1) A person commits an offence if the person intentionally gives or offers valuable consideration to another person for the supply of a human egg, human sperm or a human embryo. (2) A person commits an offence if the person intentionally receives, or offers to receive, valuable consideration from another person for the supply of a human egg, human sperm or a human embryo. The Australian Government is serious in its efforts to prevent the commercial exploitation of human gametes and embryos. An offence against this provision of Commonwealth legislation is punishable by imprisonment up to 15 years. Recommendation 23 The committee recommends that donors should continue to be able to be reimbursed for 'reasonable expenses' incurred in relation to their donation. The Australian Government supports this recommendation. 'Reasonable expenses' are specifically excluded from the definition of 'valuable consideration' under subsection 21(3) of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 (Cth): reasonable expenses: (a) in relation to the supply of a human egg or human sperm— includes, but is not limited to, expenses relating to the collection, storage or transport of the egg or sperm; and (b) in relation to the supply of a human embryo: (i) does not include any expenses incurred by a person before the time when the embryo became an excess ART embryo; and (ii) includes, but is not limited to, expenses relating to the storage or transport of the embryo. valuable consideration, in relation to the supply of a human egg, human sperm or a human embryo by a person, includes any inducement, discount or priority in the provision of a service to the person, but does not include the payment of reasonable expenses incurred by the person in connection with the supply. In addition, paragraph 17.21.2 of the NHMRC ART Guidelines addresses the issue of 'reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for the donation of gametes, gonadal tissue or cells for research purposes'. Although paragraph 6.5 of the NHMRC ART Guidelines make reference to paragraph 17.21.2, it is not explicitly stated that reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in relation to the donation of gametes or embryos for ART procedures is ethically acceptable. Paragraph 6.5 of the NHMRC ART Guidelines provides that 'commercial trading in human gametes and/or the use of direct or indirect inducements must not be undertaken'. The advice in the NHMRC ART Guidelines with respect to the reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in relation to the donation of gametes or embryos for ART procedures could be clarified in the next review of the NHMRC ART Guidelines. The Australian Government thanks the Senate for their input into the review of this recommendation. This is supported by recommendation 6 of the Report of the Independent Review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (June 2011). Recommendation 24 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with state and territory governments and the Fertility Society of Australia, develop more detailed guidelines on what constitutes 'reasonable expenses' for which donors can be reimbursed. The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The AHEC has issued general advice on the operation of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 and payments to participants in clinical drug trials (see http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/health_ethics/hrecs/reference/using_the_national_statement.pdf). This advice relates to research situations only and would have limited applicability to the range of activities discussed in the NHMRC ART Guidelines. This advice could be used as a base from which to develop further guidance for donors. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 (Cth) defines 'reasonable expenses' at subsection 21(3): (a) in relation to the supply of a human egg or human sperm—includes, but is not limited to, expenses relating to the collection, storage or transport of the egg or sperm; and (b) in relation to the supply of a human embryo: (i) does not include any expenses incurred by a person before the time when the embryo became an excess ART embryo; and (ii) includes, but is not limited to, expenses relating to the storage or transport of the embryo. The NHMRC has provided some guidance to several ART clinics at their request about the level of reimbursement that would be appropriate as 'reasonable expenses' and what would be considered valuable consideration. It strongly recommends that clinics obtain their own legal advice. The NHMRC notes that 'reasonable expenses' for some parties may act as an inducement for other parties. The NHMRC considers that a 'one size fits all' approach may not be appropriate. The advice in the NHMRC ART Guidelines with respect to the reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in relation to the donation of gametes or embryos for ART procedures could be clarified in the next review of the NHMRC ART Guidelines (see Response to Recommendation 23). Recommendation 25 In relation to counselling, the committee recommends that: counselling should be mandatory for donors and donor recipients prior to undergoing a donor conception procedure; donors and donor recipients should be able to elect to receive counselling on the donor conception process and its consequences from a counsellor independent of the fertility clinic in which they are undertaking treatment; parents of donor conceived individuals should have access to counselling following the birth of their child, to equip them to be able to tell their child about their conception and to support their child in dealing with any self-identity issues that may arise; and donor conceived individuals should have access to counselling as they mature and, in particular, when making contact for the first time with their donor or half-siblings. Such counselling should be voluntary, except where the donor conceived person is aged under 18 and is making contact for the first time with their donor or half-siblings, in which case counselling should be mandatory. The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. The NHMRC ART Guidelines define the nature of the counselling services which should be provided to participants in a donor conception program and the requirement for professionals with appropriate training skills and accreditation necessary for the counselling role. The Australian Government encourages States and Territories to legislate to require ART service providers to maintain an RTAC licence which in turn will require ART service providers to comply with the NMHRC Guidelines on counselling of persons involved in ART procedures. Recommendation 26 The committee recommends that State and Territory governments, in consultation with the Fertility Society of Australia, should give consideration to funding the provision of counselling for donors, donor recipients and donor conceived individuals following the birth of donor conceived individuals. The Australian Government notes this recommendation and considers that this is a matter for States and Territories and the Fertility Society of Australia. Recommendation 27 The committee recommends that State and Territory governments, in consultation with the Fertility Society of Australia, should develop guidelines or requirements to ensure that counsellors providing counselling to donors, donor recipients or donor conceived individuals have an appropriate understanding of the issues involved with donor conception. The Australian Government notes this recommendation and considers that this is a matter for States and Territories and the Fertility Society of Australia. Recommendation 28 The committee recommends that State and Territory governments should commission research to ascertain the numbers of individuals born through donor conception in their respective jurisdictions and that, once more accurate data is obtained, further research should be conducted in relation to the risk of consanguine relationships among those people. The Australian Government notes this recommendation and considers that this is a matter for States and Territories. Recommendation 29 Noting the disparity in evidence received throughout the inquiry as to the appropriate limit for the number of families that donors should be able to assist, the committee recommends that each donor should only be able to assist up to a maximum of four families (in addition to their own) in Australia. Although the preference is that each donor only assists one family (in addition to their own), if more than one family is to be assisted, the committee recommends that the relevant clinic must consider the following factors: the number of genetic relatives that the persons conceived would have as a result of the treatment; the consent of the donor with respect to the number of families to be created; whether the donor has already donated gametes at another clinic; and the risk of a person conceived with donor gametes inadvertently having a sexual relationship with a close genetic relative (with particular reference to the population and ethnic group in which the donation will be used). The Australian Government notes this recommendation and considers that this is a matter is for States and Territories. This recommendation is consistent with the NHMRC ART Guidelines. Although no nominal upper limit is stated in the NHMRC ART Guidelines, the four factors listed in this recommendation are contained in paragraph 6.3 of the guidelines. Clinics must 'take all reasonable steps to reduce the numbers of genetic relatives created through donor gamete programs' and should consider the four factors listed here when deciding the number of families assisted by any one donor. Recommendation 30 The committee recommends that the issue of limits on donations should be reviewed by the states and territories, in consultation with the Fertility Society of Australia, once further evidence becomes available about the importance of forming a strong sense of self-identity for donor conceived people and the risks of consanguine relationships. The Australian Government notes this recommendation and considers that this is a matter for States and Territories and the Fertility Society of Australia. Recommendation 31 The committee recommends that clinics and medical services should amend the consent forms which are signed by donors, to ensure that consent is given to the sharing of information with other clinics and medical services in the same jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions in Australia. The Australian Government notes this recommendation and considers that this is a matter for States and Territories. Recommendation 32 The committee recommends that, to the extent that the states and territories have not already done so, birth certificates of donor conceived children should be notated so that when they apply for a birth certificate over the age of 18 years, they can be provided with additional information about their donor conception circumstances if they choose. The Australian Government notes this recommendation and considers that this is a matter for States and Territories.