Additional Budget Estimates 2013–14

Additional Budget Estimates 2013–14

Report to the Senate

Introduction

1.1        On 13 February 2014, the Senate referred to the committee for examination and report the following documents in relation to the Industry and Treasury portfolios:

1.2        The committee is required to report to the Senate on its consideration of 2013–14 Additional Estimates on Tuesday 18 March 2014.[2]

Portfolio structures and outcomes

1.3        Following the Administrative Arrangements Orders issued on 18 September 2013 and 3 October 2013, the committee notes the following changes to the Industry portfolio's responsibilities as reported in Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements (PAES) 2013–14:

1.4        As a result of the Administrative Arrangements Orders following the federal election, the small business policy function transferred to the Treasury from the Department of Industry.[3]

1.5        The complete structure and outcomes for each portfolio are summarised in the appendices as indicated below:

General comments

1.6        The committee conducted hearings over two days:

1.7        In total, the committee met for 18 hours and 12 minutes, excluding breaks.

1.8        The committee received evidence from the following ministers:

1.9        The committee thanks the ministers and officers who attended the hearings for their assistance. Evidence was also provided by:

Questions on notice

1.10      The committee draws the attention of all departments and agencies to the agreed deadline of Thursday, 24 April 2014 for the receipt of answers to questions taken on notice from this round, in accordance with Standing Order 26.

1.11      As the committee is required to report before responses to questions are due, this report has been prepared without reference to any of these responses.
Indices of questions taken on notice during and after the hearings are available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/economicsctte/estimates/add1314/index.

1.12      Answers to questions taken on notice are tabled in the Senate. They may be accessed from the committee's website.

1.13      For the 2013–14 Supplementary Budget Estimates round, answers to questions on notice were due to be provided to the committee by Friday, 17 January 2014. The committee commends the Resources, Energy and Tourism portfolio for submitting all answers on time. The committee notes that:

Public interest immunity claims

1.14      On 13 May 2009, the Senate passed an order relating to public interest immunity claims.[4] The order, moved by Senator Cormann, set out the processes to be followed if a witness declines to answer a question. The full text of this order was provided to departments and agencies prior to the hearings and was also incorporated in the Chair's opening statements on both days of the Additional Estimates hearings.

Record of proceedings

1.15      This report does not attempt to analyse the evidence presented over the two days of hearings. However, it does include a brief list of the issues that were traversed by the committee for the respective portfolios.

1.16      Copies of the Hansard transcripts, documents tabled at the hearings, and additional information received after the hearings (see Appendix 2 for a list of the documents) are tabled in the Senate and available on the committee's website.

1.17      Page numbers in brackets following the topics listed below refer to Proof Hansard transcripts. Page numbers in the Official Hansard transcripts, once they are produced, may differ from the page numbers in the Proofs.

Matters raised – Treasury Portfolio

1.18      On 26 February 2014, the committee examined the estimates for the:

Treasury [Macroeconomic Group]

1.19      Dr David Gruen, Executive Director, Macroeconomic Group (Domestic), provided the committee with a summary of economic developments since the Mid‑year economic and fiscal outlook (MYEFO) was published in December 2013. He explained that:

...global growth prospects are improving in what continues to be a slow, drawn out recovery from the financial crisis. Encouragingly sentiment has been improving in recent months. That said, both old and new downside risks remain. Advanced economies are picking up and growth in China remains solid while other emerging markets are softer. While the outlook for emerging market economies has been more moderate and mixed of late they are still expected as a group to contribute the bulk of global growth
(pp 4–5)

1.20      Dr Gruen outlined developments in China where the economy grew by 7.7 per cent in 2013; in the United States with its modest but steady recovery; in the Euro where the economy appears 'to have turned the corner but the recovery remains weak and uneven'; and in Japan where the short-term outlook has been boosted by fiscal and monetary stimulus. (p. 5)

1.21      Turning to the domestic economy, Dr Gruen explained that:

...the outlook at MYEFO was for below-trend growth to continue over the current financial year and 2014-15 as the Australian economy transitions slowly to broader-based non-resources sources of growth. Recent data releases have been broadly consistent with this outlook. The September quarter 2013 national accounts showed an economy growing below trend, with growth of 0.6 per cent in the quarter and 2.3 per cent over the year. Growth outside the resources sector remained subdued, with below-average outcomes for consumption and dwelling investment in the quarter. Resources investment, which made a major contribution to economic growth in recent years, is now at or around its peak. The latest capital expenditure survey suggests that resources investment will remain elevated this financial year, supported by a few large LNG projects. Resources investment is expected to fall significantly as these projects are completed around the middle of the decade. (p. 5)

1.22      Other topics covered during the committee's examination of the Treasury included:

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)

1.23      When asked about insolvency and Chapter 11, the Chairman of ASIC, Mr Greg Medcraft, referred to his experiences in the United States (US) and gave his views on Chapter 11, which he believed was 'a very good structure'. He stated that the difference between Australia's current regime and the US Chapter 11 is that:

...chapter 11 retains management with the company, as opposed to handing the management to an insolvency expert. It also means that basically everything is frozen—labour contracts, financial contracts—such that the company's management can go away and negotiate and try to put the company back on a solid footing (p. 30).

1.24      Mr Medcraft explained further that he had always been a supporter of Chapter 11 because:

I think it significantly mitigates the loss of value that results from essentially going in and just selling up whole entities. Also, I think it is far less harmful in terms of job losses and general destruction of value. So, certainly I think chapter 11 is a very good system, because it allows a freezing. But the most important thing is that you retain the management. Often we see with companies that the issue is its financial structure, not necessarily its management. And I know from my time as a banker that often the company may be being lumbered with too much leverage or contractual commitments. This gives a chance for that to be sorted out. We can provide the committee with more information about chapter 11 (p. 30).

1.25      The remaining topics covered during the committee's examination of ASIC included:

Productivity Commission

1.26      Mr Mike Woods, Deputy Chairman of the Productivity Commission, provided the committee with an update on the Australian automotive sector. He gave the following statistics and analysis of the current level of production in Australia, which is about 200,000 in total, and the economics of operating in Australia:

The largest single plant is being run by Toyota. It is producing 100,000 vehicles. It has something like 30,000 in the domestic market and it is relying on 70,000 vehicles for the export market, primarily to the Middle East. Then you move down to Holden at 80,000. That is producing two vehicles, the Cruze and the Commodore. The Ford plant is producing less than 40,000. In fact the sales there are falling away quite rapidly. None of them [inaudible] what can be considered internationally for high-volume, low-value vehicles—that is the small and medium size, including Commodores and Falcon levels of international standards. That causes scale economy problems. They are not insurmountable problems, but they do significantly affect the economics of operating in Australia (p. 42).

1.27      The committee also examined the Productivity Commission on the following matters:

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)

1.28      The Chairman of the ACCC, Mr Rod Sims, offered the committee some comments on the Commission's budget. He noted:

We have just had an increase in our funding for 2013-14, which the government has very kindly provided in the additional estimates process. That sorts out our position for 2013-14. We are making a few budget adjustments to accommodate that—travel and things of that nature—and we are still in discussion with the government about the out years through the new policy process.

1.29      Mr Sims also referred to some of the savings measures that the ACCC is employing. He stated:

We have reduced our travel expenditure by having much less travel and making sure that everybody travels economy class, obviously. Really, it is by cutting back and having less travel. We have cut back printing costs. We are basically trying to do absolutely everything online. We have cut back on some of our IT expenditure.

1.30      The Chairman also noted that Mr Brian Cassidy, the Chief Executive Officer of ACCC, was retiring after being in the position for 14 years. Mr Sims informed the committee that he has taken over the CEO's role: that under the Act, he is now the chief executive.

1.31      During the ACCC's appearance, the committee also examined the following matters:

Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM)

The committee covered the following topics during its examination of the Australian Office of Financial Management

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)

1.32      The committee examined the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the following main topics:

Treasury [Fiscal Group] and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC)

Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC)

1.33      The Chief Executive Officer of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Mr Oliver Yates, informed the committee that there were still about 150 proponents in its pipeline. He explained further:

We have about 35 active projects that are in the pipeline for consideration. Our pipeline really is approximately $12 billion in its full form of about 150 proponents. Currently we are looking at about $3 billion worth of transactions, which constitute another 34 investments going forward. That is what happens with pipelines—things come in and things fall off. Clearly there is a large pipeline of projects. Importantly, a lot of them are not in renewable energy. A lot of them are in energy efficiency and a lot of them are in increased productivity. Remember, increased productivity and increased energy efficiency reduce emissions. Our core activity here should not only be considered renewable energy or even emission reductions. It is actually productivity. As part of that, we will drive emission savings (p. 72).

Mr Yates noted further that all the projects are different and with the support of the board and the current minister, CEFC was continuing to fulfil its mandate as best it could. He explained that CEFC was:

...continuing to do transactions in an orderly fashion. We gave an indication that we thought we would invest approximately a billion dollars over the 12 months. We still think we will probably end up investing approximately a billion dollars over the 12 months. That is our target and we are continuing on with our business plan (p. 72).

1.34      Other main topics dealt with during the examination of the Corporation included:

Fiscal Group

1.35      The main topics covered during the examination of the Fiscal Group included:

Treasury [Revenue Group] with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission (ACNC)

Treasury [Revenue Group]

1.36      During the examination of the Treasury [Revenue Group], the committee examined the following matters:

Australian Taxation Office (ATO)

1.37      The Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Chris Jordan, provided an assessment of the ATO's current strengths and weaknesses, and anticipated developments over the coming 12 months. He stated:

We have developed over the last six months a whole new, longer term strategic plan for the ATO. It is named the 2020 Vision, which was one of the issues that the capability review identified, that we did not have any particularly clearly articulated longer term strategy or positioning, and that meant that we were not particularly having a lot of strategic investments in getting to that new position.

It has focused us a lot on the service improvements that we need to make for our clients, Australian citizens and businesses. There has been a lot of effort over the last eight to 10 years in refreshing, renewing and rebuilding the core processing systems of the ATO, but a lot of that focus has been internal. I want to change that focus to be more looking at the interactions that citizens have with us and making those more contemporary. We have defined a new mission and a new vision, which is about reinventing the ATO and it is a lot about more contemporary service offerings. I think people would expect to deal with large government agencies like the ATO in a way that they deal with large businesses and have that more modern and contemporary interaction.

There is a large cultural change part of the reinventing of the ATO. That will be a fairly longer term, and not particularly easy, process but we have got substantive plans in that area. We have formed a 2020 program office to make sure that we properly coordinate our new activities in reinventing of the ATO to make sure that we stay on track and that we do also meet our obligations in terms of our action plan under the capability review. In summary, the ATO is an organisation that has many strengths, it is very good at large processing of information and it is very good at implementing large new policy proposals and projects (p. 92).

1.38      The ATO was examined on a range of other matters including:

Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission (ACNC)

1.39      The main topics covered during the committee's examination of the ACNC included:

Treasury [Markets Group]

1.40      The committee examined the Treasury [Markets Group] on the following main topics:

Matters raised – Industry portfolio

1.41      On 27 February 2014, the committee examined the estimates for the:

1.42      Matters examined included the following:

Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)

1.43      During ARENA's appearance before the committee, it was examined on a range of matters, including:

National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environment Management Authority (NOPSEMA)

1.44      During National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environment Management Authority's (NOPSEMA) examination, officers were asked about the amendments to the environment regulations in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act and whether NOPSEMA was confident these amendments would deliver stated protection outcomes (pp 9–10).

1.45      Other matters examined included:

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)

1.46      The main topics canvassed by the committee during the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)'s appearance included:

1.47      The committee also acknowledged the tremendous contribution Mr Mike Whelan, the Deputy Chief Executive of Operations, has made to the country following his upcoming retirement (p. 23).

Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA)

1.48      During ASQA's examination by the committee, the committee questioned officers about funding for the authority and the pay levels for each commissioner (p. 23).

1.49      Mr Christopher Robinson, the Chief Commissioner, informed the committee that ASQA comprised three commissioners:

I am the chief commissioner of the agency, and we have a commissioner for compliance, who manages the audit activities of the organisation, and a commissioner for risk and legal, who covers off the risk analysis work of the organisation and the risk assessment work of the organisation and all the legal work that goes with it. The three commissioners under the act form the national regulator. ASQA as a national regulator makes decisions based on a majority of commissioners (pp 23–24).

1.50      Other areas canvassed by the committee during its examination of ASQA included:

Anti-Dumping Commission

1.51      The committee welcomed Mr Dale Seymour to his first estimates appearance as the new Anti-Dumping Commissioner (p. 27).

1.52      During its examination of the Commission, the committee dealt with the following matters:

1.53      Responding to a question about the work of the commissioner and the length of time it takes to make its assessment, the Commissioner advised:

... from a time line perspective, [the Anti-Dumping Commission is] one of the most efficient jurisdictions globally. From application to conclusion, we seek to finalise the matter in 155 days, which puts us at the top of the league ladder among jurisdictions.

....

New Zealand is 180 days; Canada is 210 days; USA is 280 days; and the European Union is one year (p. 28).

1.54      The Anti-Dumping Commission was also examined on the different findings between the Anti-Dumping Commission and the Productivity Commission in regards to preserved tomatoes imported into Australia under different criteria set up by different legislation derived from different agreements under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) (pp 28–29).

Geoscience Australia

1.55      During the opening section of its appearance, Geoscience Australia answered a question the committee had earlier put to the CSIRO in relation to gas shale, its development potential in Tasmania, and whether some concerns about its environmental impact were scientifically-based (p. 30).

1.56      Other related matters examined included:

Department of Industry [Cross-portfolio]

1.57      Under examination by the committee, the Department of Industry [cross-portfolio] was questioned about the outcome from the Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance's assessment of discretionary grants across the Australian public service and whether it had any involvement in the process (pp 34–36).

1.58      The department advised that as a result of that assessment, 13 programs proceeded as normal, others were either awaiting a decision or were closed and one (Tailored Advisory Service component of the Enterprise Connect) required an additional approval step by the Minister for Finance before any spending could proceed (pp 34–36).

1.59      Other areas of examination by the committee included:

Department of Industry [Outcome 1: Australian Industry—Manufacturing, Services and Small Business Sectors]

1.60      The Department of Industry [Outcome 1] were examined by the committee on the administration of building leases, including one inherited from the Department of Climate Change following the machinery-of-government changes (pp 40–41).

1.61      The committee requested information about the terms of the lease for the Nishi building and the timing of the lease as well as what penalties were contained in the lease if the Commonwealth were to break it (pp 40–41).

1.62      Officers were able to advise the committee that staff from the Department of Industry currently occupied two of the 6 floors leased, with the remainder sub-tenanted to the Department of Education and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade under a memorandum of understanding arrangement (p. 41).

1.63      The other main topics covered during the department's examination by the committee included:

Department of Industry [Outcome 2: Science and Research]

1.64      The Department of Industry [Outcome 2] was questioned about Professor Schmidt's review of the Prime Minister's Science Prize and the 19 recommendations stemming from it (pp 69–70).

1.65      Of those 19 recommendations, departmental officers were able to advise the committee that 13 recommendations have already been implemented; five, which were more technical in nature, were still under consideration and one, which was a new prize for innovation, was not proceeded with as there was no guaranteed money (pp 69–70).

1.66      Other topics examined by the committee included:

Department of Industry [Outcome 3: Skills, Qualifications and Productivity] and the National Advisory for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment (NATESE), and Australian Workforce Productivity Agency (AWPA)

1.67      During the Department of Industry's [Outcome 3] examination by the committee, officers were questioned about the number of Vocational education and training (VET) Reform Taskforce meetings and skills workshops (pp 73–77) and the reason why they were by invitation only.

1.68      The committee was advised that the first six workshops, which were held in Canberra, were by invitation and engaged attendees from across Australia while the remainder of the workshops, held across the different capital cities, would be open workshops (pp 73–77).

1.69      The other main topics canvassed during examination by the committee included:

Department of Industry [Outcome 5: Resources and Energy]

1.70      During the Department of Industry's [Outcome 5] examination, the committee questioned the closure of Gove alumina refinery in the Northern Territory and the factors influencing its closure (pp 89–90).

1.71      The committee also sought further information about the suite of commitments Rio Tinto had entered with the Northern Territory government to support businesses and the communities affected by the refinery's closure (pp 89–90).

1.72      Related to such questions were the types of measures taken by the federal government to manage the additional need for a range of social and employment services assistance that is anticipated to rise in Gove as a result of the refinery's closure (p. 92).

1.73      Among other topics discussed included:

 

Senator David Bushby
Chair

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page