Industry Super/CBUS report "Overdue: Time For Action On Unpaid Super" published November 2016

How much super should you have right now and how much do you really have?

The Industry Super/CBUS report Overdue: Time For Action On Unpaid Super was published in November 2016.

The report states:

Introduced in 1992 at three per cent in lieu of a wage increase and as a means of boosting retirement savings, the Superannuation Guarantee (SG) is now a matter of right.

Today, employers are required to contribute at least 9.5 per cent (up from 9.25 per cent in 2014) to the superannuation accounts of every worker earning $450 plus a month.¹

In doing so, Australia has amassed a $2.1 trillion savings pool that, in shifting economic winds, increasingly holds both the nation and its people in good stead.

However, two new reports suggest some employers are undermining the system by not meeting their payment obligations. Separate analyses conducted by Industry Super Australia (ISA) and by Tria Investment Partners for Cbus indicate the non-payment of superannuation entitlements could be widespread and, in dollar terms, increasingly significant. These findings suggest further work is needed to fully understand the scale of this problem with consequential changes in ATO audit activity.

It also states:

Responsibility for ensuring SG payments are made rests almost entirely with individual employees.

High levels of disengagement, low levels of financial literacy and extreme information asymmetry mean that employees are ill-equipped to determine or address SG non-compliance.

Those most at risk of not having their SG contributions paid are younger, lower income earners working in industries with high levels of casualisation and sham contracting, including construction, cleaning and hospitality.

Small and medium-sized businesses are least likely to pay SG.

And that:

While individual experience may vary enormously, average impact of SG non-compliance is the loss of 7 months of contributions for a person earning the average wage in 2014.

Put baldly this report highlights the fact that Without action unpaid super will reach $66 Billion by 2024.

Key points in the report:

Two new reports suggest retirement incomes are being undermined by employers who are not meeting their Superannuation Guarantee (SG) obligations on behalf of workers.

These reports estimate that employers failed to pay at least $3.6 billion in SG contributions in 2013-14. The two components of the combined estimate are:

• Underpayment of SG for PAYG employees and sham contractors which Industry Super Australia (ISA) estimates was at least $2.8 billion in 2013-2014

• Unpaid superannuation for workers employed in the cash economy which separate research by Tria Investment Partners for Cbus estimates added an additional $800 million.

This equates to 30 per cent of workers not being paid part or all of their compulsory super.

Younger workers, low income earners and workers in the construction, hospitality and cleaning industries were most likely to miss out on superannuation.

On average, affected workers missed out on $1,489 or almost 4 months of superannuation contributions.

Using Tria’s projections and its own, ISA estimates that unless action is taken, unpaid superannuation will amount to over $66 billion by 2024.

These estimates are conservative - using a compliance benchmark of 8.5% of assessable income rather than the statutory rate of 9.25% in 2013-14. If these estimates took into account a loophole that allows employers to count employees’ voluntary contributions, via salary sacrifice, towards their SG obligations, the problem would be greater.

Government action is warranted. It should:

• Urgently investigate these new estimates

• Undertake detailed analysis of the types of industries and employers that do not pay SG

• Adequately resource the Australian Tax Office (ATO) to recover unpaid SG

• Immediately close the loophole that allows employers to count salary sacrifice amounts towards their SG obligations

• Investigate the feasibility of introducing real-time payment, reporting and compliance of SG using new Single Touch Payroll (STP) technology

• Introduce a direct, clear, enforceable mechanism for superannuation funds to recover unpaid SG from employers on behalf of members

• Retain existing penalties against employers who fail to pay SG and introduce stronger penalties, including personal liability for directors of companies that do not meet those obligations

• Extend the government safety net that protects unpaid wages and entitlements when a company becomes insolvent to protect unpaid superannuation.

The full report can be downloaded here.

Review of Australian Government "Direct Action Plan" to commence in February 2017

According to the Abbott and Turnbull federal governments: The Emissions Reduction Fund is central to the Government’s Direct Action Plan to cut emissions to five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 and to 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. It comprises an element to credit emissions reductions, a fund to purchase emissions reductions, and a safeguard mechanism…The safeguard mechanism will start on 1 July 2016. It will require Australia’s largest emitters to keep emissions within baseline levels.

Along with its alleged support of the expansion of renewable energy the Emissions Reduction Fund  (ERF) is the main component of the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan.

The original stated aim of the Direct Action was to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 5% below 2000 levels by 2020.

Having spent most of the original Direct Action funding by 2016 and with national greenhouse gas emissions rising instead of falling, the planned review by the Dept. of Environment and Energy is timely.

According to its terms of reference, the review will look at:

• the opportunities and challenges of reducing emissions on a sector-by-sector basis;
• the impact of policies on jobs, investment, trade competitiveness, households and regional Australia;
• the integration of climate change and energy policy, including the impact of state-based policies on achieving an effective national approach;
• the role and operation of the Emissions Reduction Fund and its safeguard mechanism;
• complementary policies, including the National Energy Productivity Plan;
• the role of research and development and innovation;
• the potential role of credible international units in meeting Australia's emissions targets; and
• a potential long-term emissions reduction goal post-2030. 

The review will commences in February with the release of a discussion paper and a call for public submissions. It is expected to be completed before the end of the year.

On 5 December 2016 the The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

The Coalition will consider a form of carbon pricing for power companies as part of a long-awaited review of Australia's climate policies, Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has confirmed.

The review of the Coalition's direct action policy will focus on electricity price rises, energy security and cutting greenhouse gas emissions but will also look at whether to introduce an emissions intensity scheme for electricity generators – a type of carbon price different to the abolished scheme brought in by the Gillard Labor government.

The possible resurrection of carbon pricing is likely to trigger intense internal debate within the Coalition once the review gets under way next year, while environment groups and the federal opposition are likely to claim the terms of reference for the departmental review lack ambition, given the threat posed by climate change to the planet…..

The review comes in the wake of several analyses finding the Coalition's direct action policy - built around an emissions reduction fund that uses taxpayer funds to pay for cuts, mostly through tree-planting and better landfill management - is highly unlikely to be enough to meet Australia's current target of a 26 to 28 per cent emissions cut by 2030 compared with 2005 levels.

The response from Coalition backbenches was immediate and very vocal. Senator Cory Bernardi calling the intention to re-consider a limited form of carbon pricing one the dumbest thing I've ever heard and failed prime minister Tony Abbott MP referring to it as an ETS by stealth.

Expect more behind-the-scenes political brawling to find its way into the mainstream media before the review is completed.

Don't expect any meaningful policy to emerge which would help mitigate the effects of climate change - after all this is a federal government being ruled by an unruly, far-right, climate change denying element on its backbenches.

On 8 December 2016 The Sydney Morning Herald revealed that:

The Turnbull government has been sitting on advice that an emissions intensity scheme - the carbon policy it put on the table only to rule out just 36 hours later - would save households and businesses up to $15 billion in electricity bills over a decade.

While Malcolm Turnbull has rejected this sort of scheme by claiming it would push up prices, analysis in an Australian Electricity Market Commission report handed to the government months ago finds it would actually cost consumers far less than other approaches, including doing nothing.

It finds that would still be the case even if the government boosted its climate target to a 50 per cent cut in emissions by 2030.

Depending on the level of electricity use and the target adopted, modelling by Danny Price of Frontier Economics found costs would be between $3.4 billion and $15 billion lower over the decade to 2030.  Costs would be $11.2 billion lower over this time assuming average electricity use and the existing climate target.

The modelling is part of a group reports on the future of energy to be discussed by the Prime Minister and state premiers ahead at a COAG meeting in Canberra on Friday.

They include a preliminary report into the future security of the electricity market by chief scientist Alan Finkel, which warns that Australia has no clear path to meeting the 2030 emissions target taken to the Paris climate deal under existing policies.

While it makes no recommendations, the Finkel review cites the market commission, Australian Energy Market Operator and Climate Change Authority as all having found an emissions intensity scheme would have lower costs and less impact on energy security than other policies considered.

It comes in a week in which Mr Turnbull launched an aggressive attack on Labor over its support for emissions intensity trading as well as a 50 per cent renewable energy target….

Under all scenarios considered, the modelling in the commission report seen by Fairfax Media found an emissions intensity scheme was the cheapest option for consumers and business.

That remained the case if the emissions target was beefed up from a 28 per cent to a 50 per cent cut by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Under the latter consumers and businesses would still pay $3.4 billion less than if no policy was introduced.

If demand for electricity was higher than average, the collective saving on electricity bills was estimated to be $15 billion.

An emissions intensity scheme sets a limit on how much a power station can freely emit for every unit of power generated. Cleaner generators that emitted less than the limit earn credits, and sell them to high-emitting generators above the baseline.

SGS Australian Cities Accounts 2014-15 and regional New South Wales

SGS Economics and Planning’s Australian Cities Accounts 2014-15 makes some interesting observations about regional New South Wales.

When looking at GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT - VOLUME MEASURE 2014-15: Regional NSW it finds this economic profile:

GDP ($ millions) $128,944 - that is $128.9 billion

Annual GDP Growth 2014-15 0.6%

Average Annual Growth (04-05 to 14-15) 0.8%

Share of NSW GDP (2014-15) 8.0%

Contribution to GDP Growth Whole Period (1989-90 to 2014- 15) 4.3%

“Growth of 0.6 per cent in Regional New South Wales was in the face of weakness across a range of industries”.

“…worst performing regions in per capita terms were Regional New South Wales, Brisbane and Queensland”.

Economy.id estimates that the Gross Regional Product for 2015 in Northern Rivers local government areas was worth:

Clarence Valley - $1.73 billion

Ballina Shire - $1.77 billion

Byron Shire - $1.47 billion

Lismore City - $2.05 billion

Kyogle Council supplied its own data which did not go beyond 2012, stating that its GRP was $330.8 million in 2011/12.

Total Estimated  Northern Rivers GRP – in excess of $7.02 billion.

Editor asks are "Councils being set up to fail?"

The Daily Examiner, editorial, 6 December 2016, p. 12:

These are interesting times inside the walls of Clarence Valley Council, with Wednesday's meeting regarding the Fit for the Future response exposing the fault lines.

There are differences between the elected councillors and also between some of those councillors and the council staff.

As a result, the proposed plan of action to become fit for the future was torn up and a new set of guidelines put forward.

Questions will be asked as to whether the councillors and staff can join forces to make the new approach work, but the real people who should be questioned regarding problems in local government throughout the state are Premier Mike Baird and his ruling Coalition.

Their attitude towards councils is nothing short of antagonistic.

There has been the series of forced amalgamations that have produced plenty of angst. Part of the amalgamation push was the Fit for the Future process, and to require councils like Clarence Valley's to submit their Fit for the Future response just a couple of days after the announcement of a miserly rate-pegging rise is harsh. Such decisions are being made by councils elected less than three months ago.

It begs the question: are councils being set up to fail to make further amalgamations easier?

Senate inquiry recommends orderly retirement of all Australian coal-fired power stations

On 13 October 2016, the Australian Senate referred the following matter to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and interim report by 28 November 2016 and final report by 1 February 2017.

The Committee recommended the orderly retirement of all twenty-four operating black/brown coal-fired power stations which currently make up est. 77 per cent of the national energy market and, are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in this country.

To date nine other coal-fired power stations have been decommissioned.

The report quotes the Australian Conservation Foundation and Climate Action Tracker:

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) argued that coal fired generators impose significant external costs to human health, the environment, and public infrastructure, which typically falls disproportionately on coal-dependent communities. The ACF noted that estimated costs of health damages associated with coal combustion for electricity in Australia amount to $2.6 billion per annum……

According to the Climate Action Tracker, to meet the federal government's Paris targets, emissions must fall 1.9 per cent annually on average. Instead, they are rising about 1.2 per cent a year. This is a clear indication that current climate policy is failing to achieve required pollution reduction……

Inquiry into retirement of coal fired power stations, Interim Report:

List of recommendations

Recommendation 1

5.10 The committee recommends that the Australian Government adopt a comprehensive energy transition plan, including reform of the National Electricity Market rules.

Recommendation 2

5.11 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with industry, community, union and other stakeholders, develop a mechanism for the orderly retirement of coal fired power stations to be presented to the COAG Energy Council.

Recommendation 3

5.12 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, through representation on the COAG Energy Council, put in place a pollution reduction objective consistent with Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement in the National Electricity Objectives.

Recommendation 4

5.13 The committee recommends that the Australian Government establish an energy transition authority with sufficient powers and resources to plan and coordinate the transition in the energy sector, including a Just Transition for workers and communities.

Community anger over South Grafton asbestos contamination not allayed by public meeting

On Thursday 1 December 2016 Clarence Valley Council held a public meeting on the subject of its asbestos removal strategy during site remediation prior to re-development of the site as a 'super depot'.

Asbestos removal will reportedly add an est. $2.5 million to the re-development $13.3 million cost. 

The Daily Examiner, 5 December 2016, Clarence Valley Council depot site plan

The Daily Examiner, letter to the editor, 5 December 2016, p.12:

Inquiry needed

Last night I attended a meeting at the Clarence Valley Council chambers, where the public was invited to be updated about the asbestos that has been uncovered at the site of the new council depot in Tyson St.

The overwhelming emotion at the meeting was one of anger, as council's director of works attempted to explain away what many see as criminal culpability.

Last year, council management was warned by a former employee that over a long period of time broken asbestos material had been buried at the site. However, rather than properly address the issue, council opted to deny there was any problem, accusing those who spoke up on the matter of being trouble-makers, scaremongers and liars.

In an attempt to quell rising concern, council instructed a firm of specialists to undertake investigations at the site. However, those instructions were to test samples from stockpiles, omitting any request to search for buried material.

Of course nothing was found, which allowed council to release a media statement which your newspaper reported (March 8), under the banner headline "Council depot site clear of asbestos".

That story contained the unequivocal statement that: "Further testing of the site has reinforced earlier findings saying it poses no risk from asbestos."

Ultimately, of course, some two weeks after excavation work had commenced, asbestos was uncovered, and during those two weeks dust was observed rising from the works, while high school students carried on activities as usual just across the fence. Nearby residents also reported the dust settling on their homes and yards.

The general public learned of the asbestos discovery with the release of papers for council's November meeting, where we read the extraordinary admission that, "A quantity of asbestos containing material was always expected to be encountered on-site" - finally acknowledging that they knew it was there all the time.

The acknowledgement that they deliberately misled the public, potentially exposing residents and many hundreds of students to deadly asbestos is, in my opinion, criminal.

After discovering asbestos at the site, workers began sieving and stockpiling what the EPA later confirmed is contaminated material. The fact that the EPA didn't inspect the site until almost two weeks after the asbestos was uncovered should also be investigated.

During those two weeks, there was no public statement made, no warning signs were erected, and contrary to assurances by council that nearby property owners and the high school had been told, many residents claimed they had received no such advice.

An assurance at the meeting that air quality is now being monitored, and that levels of whatever is floating around in the air are within guidelines, is hardly comforting, and there was no explanation of what particulate matter is being inhaled by those unfortunate enough to live or study in close proximity to the works.

One thing is certain, that anger will remain until digging up more polluted material is halted, the contaminated material is safely removed as required under the law, and a full inquiry held into how this whole shameful debacle was ever allowed to occur.

John Edwards

The Daily Examiner, 5 December 2016:

WORK on the Clarence Valley Council's $13 million super depot should stop immediately following the discovery of about 900kg of bonded asbestos on the site, say South Grafton residents.

At a public meeting on Thursday, called to discuss the issue, South Grafton resident Mark Butler said work should cease until further extensive testing on the site was done.

Mr Butler, who can see the depot 500m from his house in Moorehead Dr, said there needed to be deep core drilling of the entire site to discover the amount of asbestos that had been dumped on the site.

He described the initial testing as flawed because it was only done on selected parts of the site.

"Basically the council was saying drill here, drill there and, when they didn't find anything, they went ahead with it," Mr Butler said.

"But anecdotally lots of people knew there had been asbestos dumped at the site for more than 40 years.

"And now they've been proven right."

Mr Butler said the council should consider closing the site and completely sealing it, if it turned out there was more asbestos there than had been uncovered.

"Basically (the) council does not know what's there and, until they do, they should stop work and do more testing to find out.

"There's always been problems with the way the council pushed this depot through, but we've got to this point.

"Now they have to make sure what they do from now on does not create a medical emergency."

Mr Butler was critical of the way the council ran the public meeting, but said it did give residents a chance to have their say.

"The feeling I got was the council was trying to control it and tried to shut down any difficult questions," Mr Butler said.

Clarence Valley Mayor Jim Simmons was at the meeting and shared the concerns of residents, especially the worries about the proximity to South Grafton High School.

"At least we should look at stopping work until the start of the school holidays," Cr Simmons said.

The mayor was also surprised to learn the contractors, Hutchinsons Builders, had not installed air monitoring stations beyond the boundaries of the site on the corner of Rushforth Rd and Tyson St.

"I don't understand why they haven't done that," he said.

However, Cr Simmons was confident the contractors had the expertise to deal with the find.

Cr Simmons said the absence of the Environmental Protection Agency from the meeting had concerned him.

"I understand they had their reasons ... but I plan to get in contact with them," he said.

He was also surprised spokespeople from other government agencies, like WorkSafe, did not have more input at the meeting.

The mayor said the council owned the site and was obliged to remediate it.

"We would have had to fix it up whether or not there was a depot going on it," he said.

"There was a lot of emotion at that meeting, perhaps rightly so.

"Council needs to address their concerns about the asbestos on the site and also the dust which is blowing onto the properties."

BACKGROUND

WorkCover NSW, Fact Sheet, Bonded Asbestos:

WHAT IS BONDED ASBESTOS?

When asbestos fibres are bonded to another material, such as a cement or resin binder, it is known as bonded asbestos. It cannot be crumbled, pulverised or reduced to a powder by hand pressure when dry. Common uses in buildings include: flat (fibro), corrugated or compressed asbestos-cement (AC) sheeting; water, drainage and flue pipes and floor tiles.

If fire, hail, or illegal water blasting damages bonded asbestos, it may become friable asbestos material. A WorkCover licensed friable asbestos removalist must always carry out the removal of friable asbestos. They must also obtain a site-specific permit from WorkCover to carry out this type of work.

A WorkCover asbestos licence is required to remove 10 square metres or more of bonded asbestos (the size of a small bathroom). The reduction will result in more situations where a licence is required to remove bonded asbestos in NSW. The requirements for friable asbestos are unchanged….

A licence holder with a bonded asbestos removal licence can remove any amount of bonded asbestos provided they notify WorkCover at least seven days before commencing work. Bonded asbestos licence holders are not allowed to remove, repair or disturb any amount of friable asbestos.

Clarence Valley Independent, 9 November 2016:

The map provided to John Edwards, which purports to be a representation of a map given to Clarence Valley Council (CVC) by a former employee, who raised concerns that broken asbestos pipes were dumped within the top red circle and in other areas (not marked) at the site of the new CVC depot at South Grafton. Image: Contributed.

Clarence Valley Council (CVC) has released a map that marks where asbestos was allegedly buried at the site of the new ‘super’ depot under construction at Tyson Street, South Grafton.

The Clarence Environment Centre’s John Edwards was given the map after an appeal against CVC’s rejection of his formal GIPA (Government Information (Public Access)).

A former employee alerted the council, last year, regarding his concerns that fill placed at the site following the decommissioning of the sewerage treatment plant (STP) may have included broken asbestos pipes.

The man told the Independent that he had given the original map to council; and his main concern was the STP’s former sludge lagoon, which is marked on the map given to Mr Edwards.

The former employee said the lagoon was filled over an 18-month to two-year period in the late 1980s or early 1990s.

He said many truckloads of fill, which may have included broken concrete asbestos pipes, building waste and other rubble, were put into the hole, which was then covered with “two to three foot of top soil”…..

Looking at the various public documents – the site’s remediation action plan and supplementary soil investigations prepared by consultants WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff – it’s not clear where or how deep test holes/pits were dug.

A letter and map advising of supplementary soil investigations does not appear to concur with an email (obtained via Mr Edward’s GIPA) from the council’s water cycle manager, Greg Mashiah, to WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff.

Mr Mashiah’s email requests that “four additional test pits to be sampled; 2 in each circle”, which are marked in red with a cross on the supplied map – the one beneath the ‘former sludge pond’ was concerned with possible buried jars of mercury…..

Is it time to abandon Facebook?

We’ve all heard about “fake news” and how it now pervades our daily life.

What we are not always aware of is how social media sites like Facebook aggregate the news to focus on what our browsing history tells it we may like and, how it indiscriminately serves up these fake sites as genuine news in the feeds it presents online.

Fake news sites are not satire or comedy - they have been deliberately created to sway public opinion and voted intention.

As The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 2 December  2016:

Here's the thing: Facebook is using an algorithm to provide you "news" that it thinks you want to see. So, if Facebook has identified you as someone who supports Trump, it will pump in things like this deceptively-edited clip that you will, almost certainly, take as gospel truth. You likely won't dig deeper into the story to make sure that the clip is legit; it affirms your view that Obama and Democrats are bad and are encouraging illegal behaviour and, therefore, requires no checking.  It's literally too good to check.

This creates a dangerous echo chamber during periods of social or political unrest and even during run-of-the-mill election campaigns.

The mainstream media – now bereft of the financial and journalistic manpower resources in had in former times to explore or fully investigate issues often becomes part of that echo chamber.

Thus we find the likes of Anthony John Abbott and Donald John Trump (who were either enthusiastically promoted in the media or not critically evaluated sufficiently) elected to the most powerful positions in their respective countries.

I have to honestly say that in my opinion Facebook since its inception has been the worst offender when it comes to promoting extreme right-wing or downright fascist politicians, falsely labelled lobby groups and fake news sites.

To date Facebook’s alleged response to public criticism of its news algorithm has been less than effective.

I suggest that Australian readers of online news who wish to keep abreast of genuine domestic and international news reports avoid Facebook until Mark Zuckerberg demonstrates he is serious about delivering legitimate news on his social media platform.

U.S. president-elect Donald J Trump gets a dressing down after he went one tweet too far for one American woman

* Danielle Muscato, formerly Dave Muscato, is an atheist activist, writer, debater, pundit, musician, and transgender woman from the United States.

Just because it is beautiful........(19 )

Below Russell Falls at Mt Field

Facebook, Tasmania

The need for bee protection recognized

http://beneficialbugs.org/bugs/Honeybee/honeybee_genehanson.jpg

Euractiv.com, 29 November 2016:

After the two-year moratorium on three types of neonicotinoid pesticides, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) this month issued an unfavourable opinion on two of the chemicals, for uses that are still authorised. EurActiv’s partner Journal de l’Environnement reports.

Following EFSA’s conclusions confirming the toxicity of neonicotinoids for pollinators, the European Commission issued a moratorium on three chemicals: clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. This moratorium expired in December 2015 and is currently being reviewed at European level.

But the scope of the suspension was narrow. It only applied to the treatment of seeds or soils for crops that are attractive to bees (except greenhouse crops and winter cereals) and the spraying of crops that attract the pollinators (except post-flowering and greenhouse crops).

According to a new opinion issued by EFSA, several uses of two of these chemicals (clothianidin and imidacloprid, produced by Bayer), including the treatment of winter cereals, still pose significant threats to pollinators such as bees and bumblebees. Only the report on thiametoxam is still to be delivered, and a similar conclusion is expected.

The two-year European moratorium (2013-2015) is currently under review, and these latest opinions from EFSA could lead to the implementation of a total ban. An outcome supported by the European Pesticide Action Network (PAN), which says these products are “near the end”.

France’s biodiversity bill, published in August, foresees a complete ban on neonicotinoids in September 2018, with possible derogations until 2020.

G. E. Budge, et al, August 2015, Evidence for pollinator cost and farming benefits of neonicotinoid seed coatings on oilseed rape:

Chronic exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides has been linked to reduced survival of pollinating insects at both the individual and colony level, but so far only experimentally. Analyses of large-scale datasets to investigate the real-world links between the use of neonicotinoids and pollinator mortality are lacking. Moreover, the impacts of neonicotinoid seed coatings in reducing subsequent applications of foliar insecticide sprays and increasing crop yield are not known, despite the supposed benefits of this practice driving widespread use. Here, we combine large-scale pesticide usage and yield observations from oilseed rape with those detailing honey bee colony losses over an 11 year period, and reveal a correlation between honey bee colony losses and national-scale imidacloprid (a neonicotinoid) usage patterns across England and Wales.

The Australasian Beekeeper, 30 August 2016:

Honey bee populations in Australia are in crisis. The numbers of bees under the care of commercial honey producers are at an all time low. Commercial beekeepers wintering losses of thirty per cent are now accepted as the norm, according to Des Cannon, Editor of The ABK. Bee diseases have never been more prevalent in Australia. Every commercial beekeeper is battling disease and this battle is a full time job. A battle fought by beekeepers alone at the expense of their own time and money.

Eight out of ten (or more) commercial beekeepers are reliant on antibiotic to keep their bees alive. The choice is between dosing or death. Contamination of honey with antibiotic is a live issue. Yet the Australian government, honey packers and pesticide companies have not acknowledged the battle our beekeepers are fighting. In fact, it is a massive cover up. If we haven’t got a problem, we can’t fix it.

The frontline brandished by government, honey packers and pesticide companies to defer any concern for the honeybee is that ‘the Australian honeybee is not in decline, despite the increased use of this group of insecticides [sic. neonicotinoids] in agriculture and horticulture since the mid 1990’s’. This statement was taken from the ‘Overview Report, Neonicotinoids and the health of honeybees in Australia’, 2014, published by the APVMA, author Les Davis¹. An unfounded statement and simplistic argument, contrary to the anecdotal evidence of beekeepers Australia wide. Estimates of hive numbers alone are not a true barometer of the health of Australian bees, the old law is ‘breed bees or gather honey’. Beekeepers today are faced with a situation of constantly see-sawing hive numbers as hives collapse and are supported back to health. Most hives in Australia right now are way down on bee numbers. Len Walker of Inverell, the head of one of Australia’s most experienced beekeeping families, claims fifty per cent losses of hives in his country. He states that a real sign of the present weakened bee populations is the fact that bees need to be checked for strength prior to going onto almonds.

Despite the government asserting good bee health in Australia, estimates of bee populations published by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and cited by the APVMA in correspondence to me still show a decline in managed hives. From 2006-2007 to 2014 there was a decline of 81,765 hives². This makes the statement that ‘Australian honeybee populations are not in decline’ from the APVMA 2014 Neonicotinoid report a sham, if not a shame.

The European Union, Canada and the United States of America have partially or completely banned neonicotinoids based on a mounting body of scientific concern. The Australian government at least concedes the likelihood of complex sublethal effects of neonicotinoids, yet has not taken a stand on the use of neonics, which should be the underpinnings of any environmental management.

This begs the question to whose interests are the government vested in? The long-term sustainability of our beekeeping industry and food security or the dollar interest of pesticide corporations? Pesticide corporations continue to have a field day in Australia at the expense of our honeybees and beekeepers’ pockets.

There are over 900 scientific, peer-reviewed studies globally indicating that neonics are having severe negative effects on pollinators and suggesting regulatory agencies apply principles of prevention and precaution to all neonicotinoids.

The European Academies Science Advisory Council (April 2015)³, World Integrated Assessment advisory committee (Jan 2015)⁴ and the Belgian Superior Health Council (June 2016)⁵ have all reached the same conclusion through comprehensive reviews of independent and industry sponsored science. Furthermore they state that there are gaps in the science examining the complexity of ecosystem-wide sublethal effects. They raise concerns for the persistence, mobility and water solubility of neonicotinoids and call for a review of the adequacy of current toxic reference levels upon which the ‘safety’ of neonics are being reasoned^3,4,5. Resultant is an EU wide ban of thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacloprid. And the EU continues to review these pesticides and tighten regulations for all neonicotinoids. Montreal, Canada called a total moratorium on the use of all neonicotinoids on December 10, 2015. The irrefutable consensus is that neonics harm the honeybee. So why is Australia so far behind the rest of the world?......

In Australia neonicotinoids are everywhere. They are the most widely used pesticides. It is important to understand the way neonicotinoids operate within ecosystems and the neurological system of the honeybee to understand the full threat of these pesticides. What we are up against are chemicals that have insidious sublethal and complicated effects on bees and these effects are difficult to assess.

The honeybee is a highly social insect and relies on complex communication and navigational skills for foraging behaviour and hive survival. Previous studies have examined individual field behaviour only. But it is the ‘system’ aspect that needs to be observed^9,10. Neonics disrupt and incapacitate the honeybee’s abilities to communicate and navigate; as a result the critical function at the colony level is damaged and breaks down⁶. Bees require a lot of grooming within the hive to survive. The last thing you feel like doing when you are sick is brushing your wife’s hair.

Neonicotinoids are completely water soluble and biologically persistent with a half-life of 19 years in heavy soil16. Seeds coated with neonicotinoid will contain the pesticide throughout the grown plant. The honeybee is routinely and chronically exposed to neonicotinoids by consuming pollen, guttation drops, nectar and honeydew^11,13.

Treated seeds contains the highest concentrations of neonicotinoids. The broadscale use of neonics to coat seed rather than the discriminatory use of these pesticides as a last resort has become common practice in Australia, a practice banned in the EU and criticised widely^3,4,5. The amount required for sublethal effects is three parts per billion. This equates to a pin prick divided many times in the bottom of a litre bottle. The coating on one clover seed in a litre of water is enough to kill your hive. The neonicotinoid on one coated corn seed is enough to kill 80,000 bees. One individual canola seed may contain 1 milligram of active ingredient^{4,13,14,16,18}.

You may need to wonder about the water soluble neonicotinoid coating on hundreds of thousands of canola seeds after two inches of rain. Bees drink a lot of water. And where are your bees drinking from? Everyone has seen bees lined up around pools of muddy water in the canola paddocks. This is a main entrance into your beehives¹⁵.

Partial restrictions on neonics to crops that bees aren’t attracted to are futile due to the solubility of these compounds. Corridors and verges of native flora adjacent to agricultural lands (Ti-tree species near sugar-cane, and turnip weed as particularly important examples) are contaminated with neonic pesticides. The contamination from agricultural land is so far widespread, affecting underground water tables, wetlands, creeks and river systems and binding to soils^4,15…….

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (HIGH RISK TERRORIST OFFENDERS) BILL 2016 expected to pass Parliament

And so the downward spiral continues.........

UNCLASSIFIED

SENATOR THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS QC

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE

MEDIA RELEASE­
30 November 2016

Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016

The Turnbull Government has secured support from all states and territories for the High Risk Terrorist Offenders Bill.

The Australian Government, backed by all states and territories, has accepted all 24 recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS), including that the Bill be passed.

The Bill, including amendments, will return for debate in the Senate today and is expected to pass the Parliament this week.

This Bill further strengthens Australia's national security laws and counter-terrorism framework by enabling continued detention of terrorist offenders who present an unacceptable risk to the community at the end of their custodial sentences.

For this to happen, a Supreme Court would need to be satisfied to a high degree of probability, on the basis of admissible evidence, that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if released into the community.

Implementing the Committee's recommendations will enhance operational safeguards and ensure adequate and effective oversight.

As recommended by the Committee, the Government has developed an Implementation Plan. This includes further detail on, and timeframes for, the key operational elements of the scheme, such as developing risk assessment tools and detention arrangements for offenders. This is being done in close consultation with the states and territories.

Amendments made to the Bill include:

• when sentencing an offender convicted under any of the provisions of the Criminal Code to which the continuing detention scheme applies, the sentencing court must warn the offender that an application for continuing detention could be considered;
• the application for a continuing detention order, or review of a continuing detention order, must include a copy of any material in the possession of the Attorney-General or any statements of facts that the Attorney-General is aware of that would reasonably be regarded as supporting a finding that an order should not be made;
• the continuing detention scheme must be subject to a sunset period of 10 years after the day the Bill receives Royal Assent;
• the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) must complete a review of the continuing detention scheme five years after the day the Bill receives Royal Assent; and
• the PJCIS must review the continuing detention scheme six years after the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.

The Government thanks the Committee for its valuable bipartisan work.

The Government also thanks the states and territories for their ongoing partnership with the Commonwealth in protecting the community from terrorism.

The PJCIS Report is available on the Report PDF page of the Parliament of Australia website.

The Implementation Plan is available on the Implementation plan page of the Parliament of Australia website.

Recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Government's response

No.	Recommendation	Government Response
1	The Committee recommends that, following the consideration of the other recommendations listed in this Report, the Government obtains legal advice from the Solicitor-General, or equivalent, on the final form of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
2	The Committee recommends that proposed section 105A.3 in the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to remove from the scope of offences section 80(B) of the Criminal Code, which refers to treason.	Accepted
3	The Committee recommends that proposed section 105A.3 in the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to remove from the scope of offences subsections 119.7(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code, which refer to publishing recruitment advertisements.	Accepted
4	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to clarify the interaction between parole and bail provisions, and make explicit that: a person is not eligible for parole if that person is subject to a continuing detention order, a person detained for the purposes of giving effect to a continuing detention order is not entitled to seek bail, and a person subject to a continuing detention order and charged with a further offence is entitled to make an application for bail for that offence.	Accepted
5	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to provide that an application for a continuing detention order may be commenced up to 12 months (rather than six months) prior to the completion of an offender's sentence, in order to provide all parties additional time to prepare and for the offender to seek legal representation.	Accepted
6	The Committee recommends that, to avoid a potential ambiguity, proposed section 105A.8 of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to make clear that the rules of evidence apply to the matters the Court is required to have regard to in its decision as to whether the terrorist offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if released into the community.	Accepted
7	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to provide greater clarity to the definition of ‘relevant expert' in proposed section 105A.2. This should include examples of persons who may potentially fall within the category ‘any other expert' at item (d) of the definition.	Accepted
8	The Committee recommends that proposed sub section 105A.6(7) of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to replace the word ‘must' with ‘may' so that the expert's report may include the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (h).	Accepted
9	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 and Explanatory Memorandum be amended to make explicit that each party is able to bring forward their preferred relevant expert, or experts, and that the Court will then determine the admissibility of each expert's evidence.	Accepted
10	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to make explicit that a Court may appoint a relevant expert at any point during continuing detention order proceedings.	Accepted
11	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to make explicit that an offender is to be provided in a timely manner with information to be relied on in an application for a continuing detention order.	Accepted
12	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended so that if an offender, through no fault of his or her own, is unable to obtain legal representation: the Court has the explicit power to stay proceedings for a continuing detention order, and the Court is empowered to make an order for reasonable costs to be funded to enable the offender to obtain legal representation.	Accepted
13	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to require documents related to a continuing detention order to be given to the offender's legal representative. If the offender does not have a legal representative, the documents may be delivered to the chief executive officer of the offender's prison as currently provided for in the Bill.	Accepted
14	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to clarify what is proposed by a ‘rehearing' as set out in proposed section 105A.17, namely what matters may be considered within a rehearing, and the types of circumstances that would constitute ‘special grounds' to allow new evidence to be introduced during a rehearing.	Accepted
15	The Committee recommends that the Government clarify the process for the initiation of a periodic review of a continuing detention order in the Explanatory Memorandum, and, if necessary, in the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
16	The Committee recommends that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Government should amend Division 104 of the Criminal Code to make explicit that a control order can be applied for and obtained while an individual is in prison, but that the controls imposed by that order would not apply until the person is released. The Committee further recommends that the Government consider whether the existing control order regime could be further improved to most effectively operate alongside the proposed continuing detention order regime. Any potential changes should be developed in time to be considered as part of the reviews of the control order legislation to be completed by the INSLM by 7 September 2017 and the PJCIS by 7 March 2018.	Accepted
17	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to require a Court, when sentencing an offender convicted under any of the provisions of the Criminal Code that apply to the continuing detention order regime, to warn the offender that an application for post-sentence detention could be considered.	Accepted
18	The Committee recommends that the continuing detention order regime be subject to an initial sunset period that expires 10 years after passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
19	The Committee recommends that the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to require the PJCIS to complete a review of the continuing detention order regime at Division 105A of the Criminal Code six years after passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
20	The Committee recommends that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 be amended to require the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to complete a review of the continuing detention order regime at Division 105A of the Criminal Code five years after passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
21	The Committee recommends that the Government appoint a new Independent National Security Legislation Monitor as soon as possible.	Accepted
22	The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General provide the Committee with a clear development and implementation plan that includes timeframes to assist detailed consideration of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016. This plan should be provided prior to the second reading debate in the Senate.	Accepted
23	The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General provide the Committee a timetable for implementation of any outstanding matters being considered by the Implementation Working Group by 30 June 2017. The Attorney-General's report should include information about: the general categorisation and qualifications of relevant experts, the development and validation of risk assessment tools, conditions of detention, including any agreements reached with States and Territories on housing arrangements, and progress in adapting the existing oversight mechanisms for use in the continuing detention order regime. The report should also include any other matters relevant to implementation of the regime.	Accepted
24	The Committee recommends that, following implementation of the recommendations in this report, the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be passed.	Accepted

This bill was read for the third time in the Senate on 1 December 2016 will now become law sometime in the first quarter of 2017.