Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
3.1
The committee took evidence from the Department of the Prime Minister
Cabinet (PM&C), the Department of Climate Change (DCC) and portfolio agencies
on Monday, 18 February; Tuesday, 19 February; and Friday, 22 February 2008. The following issues raised with PM&C are discussed below:
- Ministerial ethics;
- Register of Lobbyists and Ministerial Staff Guidelines;
- late tabling of Questions on Notice and Annual Report;
- Prime Minister's official residences;
- Parliament's apology to the Stolen Generation; and
- the 2020 Summit
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Ministerial ethics
3.2
The committee sought information from PM&C as to the content and
meaning of the document Standards of Ministerial Ethics.[1]
Officials informed the committee that although the document is currently in
draft form, it will be released 'soon'. Officials also stated that the content
of the draft document was prepared in consultation with the Australian Public
Service Commission and the Department of Finance and Deregulation.[2]
3.3
Opposition Senators raised questions about the definition of key terms
in the document, including: the differences between Minsters engaging in
'public' and 'official' business;[3]
conflicts of interest;[4]
post Ministerial employment;[5]
types of criminal convictions;[6]
and political fundraising.[7]
3.4
Whilst several Opposition Senators suggested that the terminology in the
document is subjective, the committee heard evidence from officials that the
responsibility for upholding the ethical values supported in the document will
ultimately be at the discretion of the Prime Minister.[8]
3.5
Of particular interest to the committee was the discussion about
potential Ministerial conflicts of interest. Opposition Senators raised the
question of whether it was appropriate for the Special Minister of State, Senator
the Hon John Faulkner, to hold the position of President of the Australian
Labor Party (ALP), whilst discharging his duties as the Minister responsible
for the Australian Electoral Commission:[9]
Senator FIFIELD—...As the minister at the table
representing the Prime Minister, can you genuinely and honestly tell this
committee that there is no conflict in appearance with the senior national
office bearer of the Australian Labor Party, the national president of the
Australian Labor Party also being the minister with the responsibility for the
Australian Electoral Commission.[10]
3.6
Senator Evans responded that under the Standards of Ministerial
Ethics it is appropriate for Ministers to seek advice from their departmental
secretaries as to any potential conflict of interest. Senator Evans tabled two
pieces of written advice (from the former Secretary of PM&C, Dr Peter Shergold,
and the Australian Electoral Commissioner, Mr Ian Campbell) outlining their
opinion that no conflict of interest exists in Senator Faulkner holding both
positions.[11]
Furthermore, Senator Evans gave evidence that the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Brendan
Nelson MP, had also been consulted, and had expressed the view that there was
no conflict of interest.[12]
3.7
The committee notes that since the completion of its Additional
Estimates hearings, Senator Faulkner has finished his term as President of the
ALP.
Register of Lobbyists and
Ministerial Staff Guidelines
3.8
Senators questioned the department on the yet to be released Register
of Lobbyists and the Ministerial Staff Guidelines. Although it was
difficult for officials and the Minister to satisfy Senators' questions as
these documents remain unreleased, evidence was provided that established two
important points: that the document will be published in early March 2008, with
the intention of making the guidelines accessible on the PM&C website; and
the title Register of Lobbyists is currently a working title, and will
possibly be altered to recognise the fact that lobbyists approach Minsters, but
also Members and Senators. [13]
Late tabling of Questions on Notice
and Annual Report
3.9
Senator Ray questioned officials from PM&C as to why answers to Questions
on Notice (QON) and the PM&C Annual Report 2006–07 were tabled late.
3.10
Officials stated that the average number of days for responding to QONs
was 182. The committee notes that this average response time is more than four
months longer than the committee's time frame of six weeks after the hearings. On
the question of why there were such lengthy delays, officials stated that
although some QON were complex, and took time to answer, some answers were
completed but not 'cleared' by the Prime Minister's Office.[14]
3.11
On the question of why PM&C's annual report was tabled late[15]
officials stated that they were awaiting 'further information'. When questioned
as to what the 'further information' was, officials could not readily provide
the committee with an answer and took the question on notice.[16]
Prime Minister's official residences
3.12
Opposition Senators questioned officials about the use of the Prime
Minister's official residences. Most of these questions centred on the running costs,
and who paid for a recent New Year's Eve function at Kirribilli House.
3.13
Although some information was provided by officials, including that any
costs not usually covered by taxpayer funds for such an event, were covered privately
by Mr Rudd and Ms Rein, many questions were either taken on notice, or were not
answered. The refusal to provide specific information was made on the basis
that it was not usual practice to outline the specific costs of private functions
or information about guest lists.[17]
3.14
Opposition Senators also questioned officials about the entitlements
provided to the Prime Minister, including the provision of support staff at
official residences.[18]
Officials informed the committee that the Prime Minister is currently allocated
with an extra staff position which includes child care responsibilities.[19]
Parliament's apology to the Stolen Generation
3.15
Senators sought, in extensive detail, information surrounding the
Parliament's apology to the Stolen Generation. Opposition Senators asked
questions concerning: the Prime Minister's involvement in drafting the apology;
and also referred to recent media reports about some of the Prime Minster's
staff being involved in protest action during the Leader of the Opposition's
speech.[20]
3.16
Opposition Senators also questioned the government about the possibility
of releasing its legal advice regarding any compensation claims that may result
from the apology. Senator Faulkner responded that the complexities surrounding
the issue meant that it was not possible to provide the advice at the hearing
and that it was not the appropriate forum to do so anyway.[21]
2020 Summit
3.17
The committee examined PM&C officials about the organisational plans
for the 2020 Summit. Senator Fifield questioned officials about
why the dates chosen for the summit had not taken into account the fact that
they clash with the Jewish Passover festival. Officials responded that
arrangements were being put in place whereby the Jewish community could still
have input into the summit via other means.[22]
However, neither Minister Faulkner, nor PM&C officials could provide any details
of these arrangements to the committee. In response they agreed to provide this
information through questions on notice.
3.18
The committee also heard evidence from officials that 'special
circumstances funding' will be provided to applicants who meet criteria which are
yet to be determined by the 'steering committee'. This issue was also raised by
Senator Ian Macdonald, who questioned officials as to whether they
had considered the difficulty faced by people living in remote Australia. Officials
responded that the steering committee is considering this issue and that some
financial assistance will be provided.[23]
3.19
On the details of how the government intends to use the ideas that are
voiced during the 2020 Summit, the committee heard that the
current expectation is for the production of 'options papers' for the 10 summit
topics which are to be considered by the government. These documents will be
made public after the summit.[24]
Other issues
3.20
Other issues raised during the examination of PM&C included the:
- cost and stage of completion of the State Coach Britannia;[25]
- Australian Social Inclusion Board;[26]
- Welcome to Country ceremony (Opening of Parliament);[27]
and
- establishment of the Office of National Security.[28]
Australian Public Service Commission
3.21
The Australian Public Service Commission was briefly questioned by the
committee. The committee heard evidence concerning:
- levels of absenteeism in the Australian Public Service; and
- ramifications of wage restraint for commonwealth public sector employees
on salaries above $127 000.[29]
Australian National Audit Office
3.22
The committee heard evidence from the Australian National Audit Office
(ANAO) concerning two interrelated issues: the independence of the ANAO and its
statutory obligations during the 'caretaker' period; and the tabling of legal
advice about these obligations.
The independence of statutory
authorities
3.23
During the ANAO's appearance, Senators questioned the release (during the
caretaker period) of the ANAO report: Performance Audit of the Regional
Partnerships Program. Senators Minchin and Ray asked the Auditor-General, Mr
Ian McPhee, whether it was appropriate to table a controversial report during
an election campaign.
3.24
Both Senators questioned Mr McPhee on whether the enabling
legislation underpinning the operations of the ANAO should be amended, to
prevent the tabling of reports during an election campaign.[30]
Mr McPhee responded that he did not think this proposal was in the best
interests of maintaining the highest level of scrutiny and transparency of
government operations:
...My very clear judgement was that to hold it [the report] over
[until after the election] would have made the Audit Office look extremely
limp. I think the integrity of the office would have been under much more
serious question if I had tabled after the election...[I]f I was asked to do it
again if a similar situation arose under any government of any colour then I
would act in the same manner as I have acted in terms of Regional Partnerships.[31]
3.25
Mr McPhee explained that he had also tabled two other audit reports prior
to the Regional Partnerships report, during the 2007 caretaker period.[32]
He told the committee that he had sought general legal advice on the ANAO's
statutory responsibilities during the caretaker period:
I sought legal advice on the general proposition...as we approached
the caretaker period. So it was not in relation to this particular report, but
I received legal advice which basically said, 'You've got a statutory
responsibility to table as soon as practicable.'...we are always respectful of
the parliament's position...a government should be willing to be accountable
for the administration of programs at any time...the convention is really
directed to another particular purpose...[33]
3.26
The committee notes the Auditor-General's justification for tabling the
report: Performance Audit of the Regional Partnerships Program, during
the election period. The committee firmly believes, that it is in the interests
of good public administration, that the independence of the ANAO not be
curtailed to suit that needs of successive governments. Rather, the committee
respects and affirms the need for independent statutory authorities that are free
from government interference and control.
Tabling legal advice
3.27
Senator Ray requested that the Auditor-General provide the legal advice
which he received from the Australian Government Solicitor on the above matter.
The Auditor-General noted that although it was not normal practice to provide
such advice, 'because of the special position and the relationship I have with
the Parliament, I would be happy to make it available.'[34]
3.28
The committee notes the Auditor-General's decision to table legal advice
to the ANAO.[35]
The decision by the ANAO to table its legal advice demonstrates that agencies
do have the option to transparently provide information, including legal advice
to committees.
3.29
Other issues that were discussed during the committee's examination of
the ANAO included:
- the number of qualified and experienced auditors and staff
turnover;[36]
- ANAO's audit of 30 Australian Defence Force acquisition projects;[37]
and
- accounting for the GST in government accounts.[38]
Australian Institute of Family Studies
3.30
With the recent change to the Administrative Arrangements Order (25 January 2008), the committee examined for the first time, the Australian Institute of
Family Studies (AIFS).
3.31
Several Senators were interested in the findings of research that the
AIFS has undertaken. The main areas of discussion were:
- relationship breakdowns;[39]
- AIFS staffing profile;[40]
- longitudinal study on children;[41]
-
funding for the AIFS biennial conference;[42]
and
- AIFS's involvement in the Northern Territory intervention.[43]
Department of Climate Change
3.32
The committee took evidence from the recently created Department of
Climate Change (DCC) on Friday, 22 February 2008. The committee discussed a range
of topics including: Professor Ross Garnaut's employment arrangements; Treasury's
economic modelling of an emission trading scheme; the Bali climate change
conference; the renewable energy target; and the greenhouse trigger. Several
other noteworthy issues were also discussed.
Employment arrangements for Professor Garnaut
3.33
The committee explored the employment arrangements of Professor Garnaut
who is leading the joint Commonwealth-State review of climate change. The
review is examining the impact of climate change on the Australian economy and
potential medium to long-term policies to ameliorate these impacts.
3.34
Officials informed the committee that Professor Garnaut is employed on a
full-time basis by DCC from early January to 30 September 2008.[44]
He is employed under section 22 of the Public Service Act 1999 with
an annual salary of $112 600 plus a vehicle allowance.[45]
The Commonwealth is also supporting the review with at least four DCC staff
seconded to the secretariat, as well as paying for consulting work and travel
expenses.[46]
3.35
Senator Johnston requested that a copy of Professor Garnaut's employment
contract be tabled. The committee sought advice from the Clerk of the Senate
regarding whether there exist any constraints to the committee demanding a copy
of a contract of employment of a public servant (in this instance Professor Garnaut's
contract). The Clerk advised:
There is nothing to prevent the committee requiring the
production of a contract of employment of a public servant or a contract with
anyone else who receives payments from public funds. The relevant principle is
that the committee and the Senate are entitled to know how public money is
spent. Claims that such contracts are confidential have not been accepted by
the Senate in the past. In 1980, for example, the Senate resolved that it is
entitled to know the fees paid to counsel who accept briefs from the
Commonwealth.[47]
3.36
Minister Wong agreed on notice to provide Professor Garnaut's contract
to the committee, on the basis that any personal information be firstly removed.[48]
3.37
The department took on notice Senator Ian Macdonald's request for Professor
Garnaut to appear at the Budget Estimates hearings in May 2008.[49]
Treasury modelling
3.38
The committee examined the nature and scope of the economic modelling being
undertaken by the Department of the Treasury. This modelling, along with the
final Garnaut report and 'other matters associated with the emissions trading
scheme and climate change policy,'[50]
will inform the government's mid‑term emissions target.
3.39
Officials told the committee that the Treasury modelling, which was
commissioned by the former Prime Minister, is a 'work in progress' which will
be finalised in the middle of 2008.[51]
The Secretary explained that the modelling is underpinned by a range of assumptions
on technology costings and timing, which have been developed through extensive
consultation with experts in the field. These assumptions will be used to
generate a number of scenarios which will:
...amongst other things, consider different issues around the
timing of different technologies and different issues around the relative cost
of different technologies. There is not an attempt to come out with a single‑point
estimate or a single hard line that says, ‘This is the answer.’ Inevitably, we
have a situation where we have got a 60 per cent reduction by 2050 and we have
got where we are starting from, and between those there is a massive amount of
uncertainty.[52]
Officials told the committee that the underpinning assumptions
will not made public on the basis that it is a work in progress.[53]
Bali conference
3.40
The committee asked a range of questions relating to the Australian
delegation at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
conference in Bali which took place in December 2007. The official delegation
of 92 comprised of the Prime Minister and three other ministers[54]
and their staff; Commonwealth departmental officials;[55]
the Victorian Premier and other Victorian members of parliament; state and
territory officials; representatives of industry and non‑government
bodies; and the Shadow Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. Officials
were unable to provide the total cost of the delegation's trip, explaining that
'it is the responsibility of individual departments to account for what they
spend in conducting their own activities.'[56]
3.41
Officials did however provide information regarding their own travel
costs. The total cost for the DCC contingent of 20 officials was $226 860,
comprising of $187 629 for airfares, accommodation, allowances and incidentals,
and $39 231 for shared office facilities and transportation.[57]
The particular cost of the Secretary's travel was taken as a question on
notice.[58]
Renewable energy target
3.42
The committee heard evidence of the government's policy to increase the
total amount of renewable energy generated to 20 per cent of Australia's
electricity supply by 2020. Officials confirmed that the primary mechanism to
achieve this target is to increase the current Mandatory Renewable Energy
Target (MRET) of 9500 gigawatt‑hours in 2010 to 45 000 gigawatt-hours in
2020. Other measures that assist in achieving the 20 per cent target would
include 'the impacts of the emissions trading scheme...or other measures that
the government may choose to take between now and 2020.'[59]
Senator Allison asked on notice for a breakdown of that 20 per cent into
existing generation capacity, new capacity met by the expanded MRET and new
capacity met by other measures projected over the time frame to 2020.
3.43
Officials also confirmed the commencement timeframe to implement the
expanded MRET. The first step will be to agree on merger arrangements between
the various inconsistent state schemes into a single national scheme. This is
being undertaken through a Council of Australian Governments process. Once
agreement is reached, legislation will be prepared for introduction in 2009. As
a result, the expanded MRET will commence in 2010.[60]
Greenhouse trigger
3.44
There was a brief discussion on the government's consideration to
include a 'greenhouse trigger' into the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Departmental officials indicated that
they were in consultation with officials from the Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts on the matter.[61]
General issues
3.45
Other noteworthy issues that were raised during the hearings included
the:
- allocation of permits under the emissions trading scheme;[62]
- comparative level of Australia's emissions;[63]
- basis for the government's commitment to reduce Australia's
emissions to 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050;[64]
- level of abatement achieved by various greenhouse programs;[65]
- subsidies for fossil fuels in Australia;[66]
and
- National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility;[67]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page