Chapter Two - Transport and Regional Services portfolio
Department of Transport and Regional
Services
2.1 The Committee heard evidence from the Department on
Monday, 14 February and Friday 18
February 2005. The hearing was conducted in the following order:
- Corporate
Group
- Policy
and Research Group
- Transport and Portfolio Policy
- Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics
- Programmes
Group
- Regulatory
Group
- Office of Transport Security
- Airservices Australia
- Aviation and Airports Regulation
- Surface Transport Regulation
- Australian Maritime Safety Authority
- Safety
and Investigation Group
- Australian Transport Safety Bureau
- Regulatory
Group
- Civil Aviation Safety Authority
- Programmes
Group
- Local Government Programmes
- Policy
and Research Group
- Programmes
Group
- Regional Programmes and Territories
- National Capital Authority
2.2
In his opening remarks to the Committee, the Secretary
of the Department focussed on number of issues relating to DOTARS' twin
responsibilities for transport and regional services.
2.3
DOTARS' Secretary, Mr
Mike Taylor,
stated that airspace reform remained a high priority for the Department and
commented on the decision to transfer responsibility for airspace regulation
away from Airservices Australia.
He also emphasised the Department's efforts in further improving airport
security, including funding initiatives to raise security at regional airports
and the enabling of the Aviation Transport Security Act. He also alerted the
Committee to expenditure on maritime security and engagement with the states on
surface transport security. He also informed the Committee of a commitment to
enable the ATSB to lift its safety investigation capacity.
2.4
The Committee was also told that a number of new road
funding projects had been announced under the AusLink initiative. These relate
to the Geelong bypass, Townsville
ring road and various Roads to recovery and black spot programs.
2.5
On regional matters, the Secretary informed the
Committee that the Department was undertaking to extend the Bank@Post program,
continuing the icon program and broadening the Sustainable Regions Program.
Further, the Department was administering a bushfire administration program
over three years, as well as the continuation of the flood mitigation, natural
disaster relief and aerial fire fighting programs.[1]
2.6
The Departmental Secretary also flagged the prospect of
another change to the Department's structure. On 7 March 2005, Mr Taylor
wrote to the Committee indicating that he had implemented the following
administrative structure:
- Corporate Services
- Regional Services
- Territories and Local Government
- Australian Transport Safety Bureau
- Office of Transport Security
- Aviation and Airports
- AusLink
- Maritime and Land Transport
- Portfolio Policy and Research
Corporate Group
2.7
The Committee began by addressing the issue of answers
to questions on notice. The Committee was concerned that the late provision of
answers did not enable the Committee to examine the responses in the context of
the current hearings.[2]
2.8
The Committee discussed the Department's financial
state including the $80 million decline over the last financial year, from a
surplus of $20.1 million to a $59.4 million deficit.[3] A major contributor to the deficit was
the whole-of-government asbestos related disease provisions for which the
Department will contribute $63.4 million. Through discussion, it was revealed
inaccurate figures of $3.4 million for the asbestos provision were listed in
the ANAO report.[4]
2.9
On the second day of hearings (Friday 18 February), the
Committee pressed officers on the issue of late answers to questions placed on
notice in the Senate.[5] Specifically the
Committee queried why an answer had not been provided to question on notice no
279 relating to the 2003-04 report on the operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995. The Department
was asked to provide details of the work on the answer. The Committee also
requested details of how often the Department did not reach its 30 day
turn-around time for providing answers to questions on notice for Ministerial
clearance.[6]
Transport and Portfolio Policy
2.10
The AusLink project has been the Department's major
analysis of emerging infrastructure capacity problems. AusLink's primary focus
is on the Commonwealth funding of the land transport network which links roads,
rail, ports and airports. It was created in consultation with the public and
state and territory governments.[7]
2.11
A major component of the AusLink White Paper is the
land transport corridor studies. The Department has identified 23 corridors and
is currently investigating at ways to best cater for growth in these areas by looking
at a range of transport outcomes and not focusing exclusively on roads.[8]
2.12
Four pilot corridor areas have been agreed on; Sydney
to Melbourne, Adelaide
urban links, Perth to Adelaide
and Brisbane to Cairns.
The Department indicated that they would work with individual state governments
to develop joint objectives for federal and state governments, focussing on
safety outcomes for particular routes, transit times for heavy vehicles, road
and rail upgrades and technology solutions. The corridor studies seek to
provide an objective mechanism for an optimal outcome for infrastructure
investment.[9]
2.13
The Department outlined to the Committee that 18 projects
had been approved under AusLink's Strategic Regional Projects, and that it was
seeking more detailed proposals pertaining to these projects.[10]
2.14
The Committee sought further information in regard to
the AusLink-driven change to road funding for local councils under the Roads to
Recovery program. The Department explained that a division of funding was
allocated between the states, with another allocation to individual councils.
The allocated amount for each council is determined by legislation and not
discretionary decisions by ministers.[11]
The Department explained there has been a ten per cent funding increase per
annum in the Roads to Recovery program since last year.[12] Through AusLink, councils will now
receive $300 million under the Roads to Recovery funding formula, and $30 million
a year over five years for strategic funding at a total of $150 million.[13]
2.15
The Committee inquired about negotiation for the open
skies agreement with Singapore
Airlines. Beginning in September 2003, the agreement allows for unlimited
Australian and Singaporean carriers to fly between the two countries.
Negotiations on further liberalisation, particularly relating to flights across
the Pacific, have been delayed whilst the countries wait for the aviation
industry to stabilise after the September 11 terrorist attacks and the SARS
outbreak.[14] The Department indicated
that discussion had recommenced, but that any further agreements expanding the
rights of Singapore Airlines would be dependent on commensurate benefits to
Australian carriers.[15]
2.16
The Committee discussed at length the offer of the Singapore
government to lift all restrictions on Australian flights beyond Singapore.
Specific attention was given to the impact of that arrangement on the
trans-Pacific route and flights to North America. The
Department reported that the issue was being discussed that week in official deliberations
between the Singaporean Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional
Services.
2.17
The Committee also heard evidence in relation to the
Department's airline usage. In July of 2003 the government announced the
objective of 10 percent of all Australian government officers' travel on the
Canberra-Sydney route to go towards small airlines.[16] Overall the Department spent $1.7
million on domestic travel in 2003-04. Of this figure, 85 per cent was Qantas,
6.5 per cent was Virgin Blue, 6.4 percent Regional Express and 2.7 per cent
other carriers.[17] The Department has
taken on notice to provide the Committee with the exact percentage of travel
given to small airlines on the Canberra-Sydney route.[18] However, the Department claims to
consistently have given business above the Government's 10 per cent objective
to Rex Airlines.[19]
Transport Programmes
2.18
The Committee inquired about the Department's newly
acquired Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme, transferred from the
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The Department defined the
differences between this scheme and the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme.
The Subsidy Scheme deals with the subsidisation of bulk shipments of wheat to Tasmania,
whereas the Freight Equalisation Scheme includes shipments of containerised
wheat.[20] The Department explained that
while the government had previously announced it was going to end the wheat
subsidy scheme, with wheat eligible for the alternate Freight Equalisation
Scheme subsidy, the wheat subsidy scheme covering bulk shipments of wheat had
been reinstated.[21]
Office of Transport Security
2.19
Regional airport security was a major issue of interest
to the Committee. Many questions regarding pilot licenses were addressed,[22] as well as pilot training.[23] The Department stated that the license
fee to be levied on pilots is expected to drop from the $200 discussed in
previous Estimates hearings. The Department indicated that 35,000 pilot license
checks will need to be done and pilots who need to access secure airport areas
will require a different ASIO security check[24],
which generally takes between 4 and 6 days.[25]
The check to retain the Aviation Security Identity Card is undertaken every two
years.[26]
2.20
The Committee was interested to hear about the
Department's security training at regional airports.[27] The Department responded by clarifying
that DOTARS would be working with state police forces for training and
anti-terror exercises.[28] Through
extensive consultation with the state police forces, it has been ascertained that
the best approach will be to customise the exercises and events based on the
types of airports and jurisdictions as well as the airports' transport security
programs.[29] In addition to this, some
standard training material will be available to airport and aircraft operator
staff on CD, plus a course on a secure Internet site.[30]
2.21
Security checks for the maritime sector were also
discussed. In July 2004 the Government announced that security identity cards
will be issued. Policy regarding the cards is currently being explored through consultation
with the relevant parties.[31] The parameters
of the card are currently being discussed by the Minister.[32] Australia's
unique circumstances have been taken into account for the policy, and
references to countries that have similar arrangements, such as the US,
Canada and the UK
have been made.[33]
2.22
Shipping security was also an area of interest for the
Committee.[34] The Department discussed
'high-risk ships' which are profiled by crew, cargo and arrangements concerning
the ship. Less than 5 per cent of the 11, 000 ships that visited Australian
ports in the previous year were in the high-risk category.[35] Seventy to 80 per cent of all ships entering
Australian ports are inspected by the Australian Customs Service.[36]
2.23
The Committee questioned the Department in relation to the
transport of dangerous goods. The Department considers this to be a complex
issue as it deals with responsibilities under the Maritime Transport Security Act 2003
in addition to issues of rail, trucking, storage and distribution.[37] The Department's work is now linked in
with a review of hazardous materials being done by The Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) to ensure there is no overlap between States and
governments.[38]
2.24
When considering
dangerous goods, the transport of ammonium nitrate was of particular interest
to the Committee. The Department advised that five single voyage permits for
ammonium nitrate have been issued since 1 July 2004 and there has been a turnover
of 10, 800 tonnes in this time.[39] The
Committee was told that COAG has made decisions on a licensing regime for
ammonium nitrate, but would provide the details to the Committee on notice. The
Department highlighted the fact that the complexity of securely transporting
ammonium nitrate manifested itself in supply chain issues. Risk assessments are
being conducted before strict regulations are set that may not achieve the
desired security outcomes.[40]
2.25
The Committee pursued an interest in Australia's
offshore oil and gas facilities and assets. The Department noted they had given
comment to a task force formed by Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to
look at the issue.[41] This task force
reported their findings to the Secretaries Committee on National Security who
in turn made a recommendation to the National Security Committee of cabinet.
The government then made an announcement in regard to this report on 15 December 2004.[42]
2.26
A bill to extend the Maritime Transport Security Act 2003 is expected to come before the
Parliament during the winter session in order to have the security regime for
offshore oil and gas facilities in place by 30 September 2005.[43]
The bill will build on existing legislation. It will also take into account the
fact that oil and gas facilities can sometimes resemble ports and sometimes
resemble ships.[44] Guidance material
will be developed including a risk context statement so there is a consistency
across the line of some 56 varying facilities around the Australian coastline, whilst
still catering to the differences between sites.[45]
Airservices Australia
2.27
The Committee inquired about the $150 million election
promise to install 10 regional radars for airports.[46] The Committee was interested in the
funding of the election promise and why an appropriation was not issued. The Department
explained that the question of funding has not yet been resolved and no formal
proposal has been given by the Government at this stage.[47] The Department also outlined
Airservices Australia's
current funding arrangements to the Committee. The radar expense would be spread
over several years and the funding would consequently be staggered. Airservices
Australia expects to raise over half a billion dollars in capital from private
equity markets over the next five years, some of which could in effect be put
towards the radar funding.[48]
2.28
The Committee was interested to hear from Civil Aviation
Safety Authority (CASA) about their involvement with the $150 million towards
regional radars.[49] To help the Committee
understand CASA's involvement, the Department gave an outline of the agency's
area of jurisdiction. CASA's role is to oversee safety standards, and to
regulate procedures used in airspace.[50]
CASA's advice to the Minister on various radar technologies has been that the
use of radar in any airspace would enhance safety. CASA has not done a
comparison between the use of regional radar and ADSB technology at this stage.[51] For further information from CASA see
paragraphs 2.35 and 2.36.
2.29
The Department has also been looking into Automatic
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADSB) technology, which could be used as an
alternative to the regional radar.[52] The
cost of an ADSB unit is estimated to be one-twentieth of the cost of terminal
radar and would focus on the upper airspace (over 30, 000 feet). However, it
would also include the lower airspace, which the radar would focus on.[53] For the next two years, $14 million
has been allocated to ADSB technology.[54]
2.30
ADSB requires the aircraft flying in the area to have
the ADSB equipment fitted.[55] ADSB is
still very much under trial,[56] but in
the medium term is considered to be an effective alternative to the traditional
radar systems. Should the trial prove effective, a mandate would be issued by
CASA that all aircraft operating in the system have an ADSB transponder fitted
and turned on.[57]
2.31
The Committee queried officers about airport tower
controls and was informed that the Department commenced a review of pricing
arrangements for airport tower controls in August 2003.[58] The completed review was presented to
the ACCC, who made a final decision before Christmas 2004 where they endorsed
the pricing proposal for all terminal locations for en route services. The
endorsed prices were implemented 1
January 2005.[59] A
transition subsidy has been granted to 14 airports for the installation of the
towers and any loss associated with each operation. $7 million was given last
financial year for the subsidy, and a further $7 million this financial year.[60]
Surface Transport Regulation
2.32
The Committee was interested to discover why the Department
did not include the issue of cabotage in their submission to the Productivity
Commission's review of national competition policy reforms, as cabotage was
outlined in the terms of reference of the review. The Department took the
questions on notice.
2.33
The Committee looked into the Department's handling of
ageing bulk ships entering Australian ports.[61]
Based on historical measures, in Australia
a high-risk ship is 15 years of age or above.[62]
The majority of the high-risk ships are bulk iron ore, coal and wheat carriers.[63] Eighty per cent of high-risk ships
were targeted for inspection in 2004 and a 96 per cent inspection rate was
achieved.
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
2.34
The Committee engaged officers from AMSA on the issue
of Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs). They were informed
that there is to be a transition to digital EPIRB technology due to take place
on 1 February 2009, which
will provide a signal that is more effectively transmitted. AMSA indicated that
an education program had already started and that the two EPIRB systems would
continue to operate in tandem until 2009.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
2.35
Since the arrival of their new CEO last year[64] CASA has been studying the boundaries
and legislation within which CASA operates. From this information CASA has
outlined a set of priorities for the agency.[65]
Further, in recent years CASA has been undertaking the Regulatory Reform
Program in the hope to get better outcomes for the industry.[66] The program is focused on producing a
quality response rather than a timely completion. Whilst the review was nearing
completion, the Department has decided there is a need to have additional
consultation to ensure a careful analysis of all risks is taken into account,
and the best regulations possible implemented.[67]
2.36
The Committee inquired about the review of drug and
alcohol testing in the wake of the Hamilton
Island tragedy. The public were
invited to submit a response to the Department's proposed terms of reference and
a draft report is currently being considered by the Minister for Transport and
Regional Services. If the Minister agrees on the report's release, it will then
be considered by the industry as a final draft and returned to the Minister by
the end of April 2005. [68]
Local Government Programmes
2.37
On the second day of DOTARS' appearance before the
Committee for additional estimates, the Committee inquired about the reform of
local government financing and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Economics, Finance and Public Administration report, Rates and Taxes: a fair share for responsible local government (the
Hawker Report).[69] During the 2004-05 budget
estimates the Committee raised the matter of the Department's response to recommendations
in the report; the Department stating that there was a need for cooperation
amongst the states and local government to improve assistance policies.[70]
2.38
The former Minister for Territories and Local
Government, Senator Campbell,
stated that the Department is seeking to implement the recommendations of the
Hawker Report this year, with a departmental task force established to address
the recommendations. [71] The Committee was interested in the
amount of departmental resources used to establish and maintain the taskforce
as well as who were on the taskforce. [72]
The Department could not give exact details of resources used, however they indicated
that there were two full time members of the taskforce[73] from within the Department. The
taskforce consulted with other officers of DOTARS, Treasury and Finance, the
Department of Health and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
2.39
Local government and the states have been consulted
through the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council. Further to this, a
roundtable was chaired by the Minister mid 2004. This included representatives
from State and Local government associations as well as the Australian Local
Government Association (ALGA).[74] There
were also separate consultations with individual local and state government
representatives.[75] The Local
Government Joint Officers Group (LOGJOG) holds regular meetings at which
discussions of the Hawker Report have remained on the agenda, which have
created an avenue for further input from key stakeholders.[76]
2.40
The Committee was advised that the response to the
Hawker Report is currently in draft stage within the Department and it is expected
that it will be given to the Minister within the calendar year for his
consideration.[77] The Department
indicated that they did not feel the task of producing a response to this
extensive report was being restricted by a lack of resources.[78]
2.41
The Committee inquired about the 52.1 per cent fall in
expenditure on Regional Flood Mitigation in the budget estimate of 2003-04. The
Department explained that the allocated funds are paid by the Department only
when work has been completed on the projects. Funding that has been allocated but
not spent carries over to 2004-05 and 2005-06 until the project is completed
and paid in full.[79]
2.42
The Committee queried why the dredging of Tumbi Creek (at
The Entrance in New South Wales)
has not received funding through the Regional Flood Mitigation Program. The Department
stated that funding is granted firstly, on the basis that it meets the criteria
of reducing the risk of flooding, and secondly, where an agreement between
local, state and federal government on a proposal can be reached. In the case
of dredging Tumbi Creek, the proposal did meet the program's criteria, but
there was no agreement between the State and federal governments.[80]
2.43
The Committee requested information about the recent
devastating bush fires in South Australia.[81] The Department outlined that the
responsibility for response to bushfires is a state matter; therefore the
Australian Government's response has been around the natural disaster relief
arrangements (NDRA). States are eligible to receive the Australian government
rebate when their expenditure exceeds a certain level on specific activities.[82] According to the Department, the
recent Australian bushfires were certainly eligible for NDRA.
2.44
The Committee was advised that the South Australian Premier
wrote to the Prime Minister asking for an Australian Government matching
contribution to South Australia's
$6 million towards a bushfire recovery fund for the Eyre Peninsula
bushfires. The Acting Prime Minister responded to the request stating that
whilst there was no obligation to do so, funding would be granted through the Department
and also within the criteria of the NDRA.[83]
This correspondence was followed by a meeting between departmental officers and
their South Australian counterparts to discuss the NDRA eligibility status.
Contact between the two parties has been ongoing.[84]
2.45
South Australia
has received Federal Government assistance which includes an original $15, 000 payment
made by the Department of Family and Community Services through Centrelink. On 14 January 2005, the government
announced additional ex gratia payments made by Centrelink. The approximate
total in ex gratia payments was $300, 000 at 7 February 2005.[85]
Further, the Australian Tax Office has offered assistance by fast-tracking
refunds and providing extension on debt repayments. The Australian Defence
Force has also made recent announcements about providing a Reserve Brigade to
assist with recovery efforts.[86]
2.46
The Committee was told that the South Australian
government must spend their bushfire recovery funding before they are eligible
to receive the Government rebate. At this stage South
Australia has not yet made a claim on the NDRA for the
Eyre Peninsula fire. The Department recognised that the
recovery process was still in its early stages and does not expect a claim for
quite some time.[87]
2.47
The Department
exchanged information with the Committee on bushfire trails. The Committee was
informed that the Bushfire Mitigation program announced by the Prime Minister
on 8 September 2004[88] has been
allocated $5 million a year for the next 3 years, with a total of $15 million.[89] This is used to maintain old fire
trails, put in new ones, and to widen roads and signs. The Committee was
informed that the program would be run along similar lines to the Natural
Disaster Mitigation Program where state and local government, including
agencies expert in the field of managing fire trails, are consulted. This consultation
will result in a list of prioritised proposals, the funding for which will be
shared between State, local and Commonwealth government.[90] The Department stressed, however, that
it is important to take into consideration that under these proposals many of Australia's
bushfire trails would be on state owned national parks and reserves and also
private forests.[91]
2.48
The Committee discussed at length the COAG report, National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation.[92] The Department indicated that it was
part of the working group that developed a response to the report,[93] particularly in providing a
secretariat to the working group.[94] The
Committee was concerned at the length of time being taken to address the 29 recommendations
in the report, given it was written in response to the 2002-03 bushfire season.[95]
2.49
In making reference to the Prime Minister's media
release of 24 January 2004,
stating that eight of the report's 29 recommendations have been implemented,[96] the Committee requested details of the
progress made on each individual recommendation. In summary to the Committee's
questioning, Senator O'Brien
stated:
I think we have identified that the recommendation in relation
to more effective land use planning measures has been met; that the
formalisation of agreements on broadcasts with the ABC has been met, but not
with commercial broadcasts, so that has been met in part; and that the adoption
of the incident control centre by all Australian fire authorities has been met.
We think that the Insurance Council has been asked to review the industry’s
code of conduct, but you are checking that. There has not been a formalisation
of the coordination and development of policy on bushfire mitigation and
management across Commonwealth departments, but it is argued that that is not
necessary.[97]
2.50 The Department explained that the majority of responses
to the recommendations were a work in progress,[98] stating: "that is typical of a
lot of this report, which is about trying to establish a more rigorous
framework over a period of time."[99]
The Committee also acknowledged an understanding that some of the
recommendations have long-term measures.[100]
Moreover, the Department is not responsible for responding to all the
recommendations as other agencies will also be involved.[101]
Regional Programmes and Territories
2.51 The Committee sought details of COAG's indigenous
community trials in the East Kimberleys.[102] The Department outlined their
involvement as such:
Our role as the lead agency is to garner the support, the
collaboration and the cooperation of our colleagues in other Australian
government departments to ensure that there is a streamlined approach to
delivery in that area.[103]
Close to $1 million has been committed to the trial this
financial year, which will be supplemented with funding from other departments.[104]
2.52 The Committee then questioned the Department on the
Regional Partnerships Program. The Budget allocation for the Program for the
current financial year is $103.431 million, which is an additional $12.9
million to the budget estimates.[105]
The Committee then made reference to the Senate Finance and Public
Administration Reference and Legislation Committee inquiry into the Regional
Partnerships Program and a document was provided to this committee, Election Commitments 2004: likely to use
Regional Partnerships program as mechanism, prepared for the ACC, 7 January,
2005.[106] The Department indicated
that the Regional Partnerships projects listed in this document did not
correspond to those listed in the additional estimates. Those projects not
listed may be considered in future budgetary processes.
2.53 The Committee questioned the Department over Bank@Post
Regional Partnership Program, in particular the reasoning behind a $10.7 million
funding to the project over a four year period.[107] Ms
Riggs, Acting Deputy Secretary of the
Department responded;
There is quite a lot of set-up
involved in this one, but it will not be much to keep it going once it is
ticking over. In terms of the way in which the election commitment has been
expressed, this is to roll out giroPost, to be rebadged as Bank@Post, to some
266 licensed post offices. We have to negotiate a memorandum or funding
agreement with Australia Post; we have to work through to discover how many of
those 266 might be able to want to benefit from the commitment. We have to
agree with Australia Post on a schedule for the roll-out of those. There is an
intensive chunk of work to be done in the period from the time the government
was re-elected until the end of this financial year. We have been granted
funding to ensure that we can do that and to provide for any legal assistance
that we might need in developing the funding agreement—for example, beyond the
normal departmental capability.
The Committee proceeded by asking when the Bank@Post project
submitted an application for funding with the Regional Partnership Program. The
Department stated that:
Governments are entitled to make judgments about how they will
give effect to commitments they have made during election campaigns—indeed,
they are obliged to make judgments about how they will do that. Their
announcement here is that this commitment will be delivered through the vehicle
of Regional Partnerships.[108]
2.54 The Committee further queried the application processes
in the Icon Projects. Announced as election commitments the Icon Projects are
as follows: the Mackay Science and Technology Centre, the Buchanan rodeo park
in Mount Isa, the Bert Hinkler hall of aviation, a covered arena at the Dalby
Showgrounds, the RM Williams bush centre and the Tamworth Equine Centre.[109] The Department reasoned that
although the projects had not submitted formal applications for funding with
the Regional Partnerships Programs, they will all undergo risk assessments
before any funding is granted.[110]
2.55 The Committee also questioned the Department in
relation to whether Regional Partnership applications had been rejected on the
basis that a grant could affect business competition. The Department responded
that competitive neutrality is a consideration for all applications, stating
that private businesses may successfully apply where there is an unmet demand
for the project in the relevant region.[111]
2.56 The Committee showed particular interest in the Lakes
Creek Meatworks. The Department explained that whilst Lakes Creeks Meatworks is
a commercial enterprise, it is still included in the terms of the programs
guidelines.[112] In most cases, funding
for commercial works is less than 50 per cent of the total cost for the
project.[113]
2.57 The Committee queried the date that Mr
Kiernan was appointed the Chairman of Primary
Energy.[114]
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 24 March 2005 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site
Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
