Portfolio Issues
2.1
The following discussion highlights some of the major issues canvassed
during the estimates hearings.
Department of the Senate
2.2
The Committee questioned the Department of the Senate on the status of
the orders of the Senate relating to the production of documents, and what
weight freedom of information requests have in relation to orders of the
Senate. The Clerk responded that 'the power of the houses exists over and above
the FOI Act' and if there was an agency or Minister refusing to provide
documents to the Senate, a majority of the Senate could impose a penalty.[1]
2.3
The Committee discussed the response of the Australian Information
Commissioner to the provision within the orders for the production of documents
on the mining tax and new health reform funding model that the Information
Commissioner examine the grounds advanced by the government for nondisclosure
of the documents and to provide a report to the Senate. In response to questions
on the matter, the Clerk responded:
I am quite surprised that the Information Commissioner has
taken the line that he has, which is one of very strict statutory
interpretation. His statute does not encompass this specific function;
therefore, he claims that he is not empowered to produce the document. My argument
is that the power to require the production of the document is an overarching
and underlying power that in some senses makes the statute irrelevant.
2.4
The Clerk also commented that perhaps this matter could be referred to
the Senate Privileges Committee to look at what could 'be done to raise the
knowledge of senior officials about the practices of the parliament'.[2]
2.5
The issue of the presentation of petitions to the Senate was canvassed,
particularly in light of media comments which reflected a possible
misunderstanding of the conventions in relation to the presentation of petitions.
The Clerk explained the conventions which apply when senators present petitions:
There is no notion that by doing that the senator is in any
way signing up to the content of the petition. What the senator is doing in
presenting that opinion, which is out there in the community—it may be held by
as few as one person—is acting as a conduit between the community and the
Senate. A petition with one signature on it is as valid as a petition with
100,000, provided it conforms with those basic rules in the standing order.[3]
2.6
Other issues raised by the Committee related to the number of references
referred to Senate committees and how the department manages staffing levels. The
Committee also acknowledged the high quality of the publication, Annotated
Standing Orders of the Australian Senate, and recognised the long service provided
to the Senate by the retiring Acting Deputy Clerk, Mr Cleaver Elliot.[4]
Department of Parliamentary Services
2.7
The Committee questioned the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) in
relation to the current joint parliamentary inquiry into the Parliamentary
Budget Office (PBO) and the role the proposed PBO could play in the Parliament.
Concerns were raised about the provision of adequate accommodation space for a
PBO. However, these concerns were dispelled by DPS which explained that there
were several unused spaces within the building that could be converted to
office space.[5]
2.8
Issues raised at the supplementary estimates hearing were again pursued
with the Parliamentary Library including the increase in requests for research from
members of parliament and the pressure this places on Library staff. The Library
noted that it was working towards having more resources available online and
that an external staffing review, commencing in the near future, would look at
the best way to deliver services electronically.[6]
2.9
DPS also answered questions in relation to the Defence Force Retirement
and Death Benefits (DFRDB) Bills Digest published by the Library. The
Parliamentary Librarian commented that 'there were some areas where we could
have been more fulsome in terms of the content' in the Bills Digest and went on
to state that this incident had shown the Library where it could improve its
processes but did not 'go to the nature of the Digest itself being
biased'.[7]
2.10
The costs and progress of reviews of the Library were discussed with the
Committee. One review is to set a strategic direction for the Library and the
other is an external review of staffing levels.[8]
Progress on the recruitment process for the position of director of the Law and
Bills Digest Section was also raised.[9]
2.11
The Building and Occupants Services section of DPS was questioned
extensively and matters covered included the Parliament House 'Briefing Room'
and security services at Parliament House. The Committee examined the funding
arrangements and general responsibilities of the various government departments
involved in the running of the Briefing Room. In relation to security matters, the
issue of 'swipe' access to certain areas of the building was again raised.[10]
2.12
Other issues covered by the Committee included security exemptions at
official ceremonies of Parliament, billiard tables in Parliament House, the
catering contract with InterContinental Hotel Group (IHG), the solar panel
trial for the building and policies in relation to the hanging of portraits in
the building.[11]
2.13
Parking pressures at Parliament House, due to the recently enforced
three hour limit in the public car park, were raised by the Committee. DPS stated
that it is looking for a solution to the situation, particularly as there is no
plan for new car parks within easy access of Parliament House in the near
future.[12]
2.14
The Committee raised concerns in relation to the state of the Parliament
House computer network and proposal for DPS to take over responsibility for all
electorate office computing services from the Department of Finance and Deregulation.
Senators suggested the inclusion of internet access at Parliament House for
private devices, and further questioning on IT covered Blackberrys, iPads and staffing
levels.[13]
2.15
In relation to broadcasting and Hansard, the Committee canvassed the use
of Committee Room 1R1 for estimates committee hearings as permanent cameras are
not installed in this room. In relation to Hansard, the Committee questioned
the department on outsourcing arrangements for committee hearings, particularly
in-camera proceedings. The Committee also looked at matters relating to the publication
of Hansard and the video-conferencing product TelePresence.[14]
Finally, works being carried out around Parliament House—in particular the reactivated
water features—were discussed by the Committee.[15]
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Office of the Official Secretary to
the Governor-General
2.16
The Committee opened questioning of the Office of the Official Secretary
to the Governor-General on two important invitations recently received by the
Governor-General: the 60th anniversary of the Queen's accession on
12 February 2012; and the wedding of Prince William and Miss Kate Middleton.
The Office also provided additional information in relation to an afternoon tea
at Government House which had been the subject of media comment in January 2011
and the arrangements for the episode of MasterChef filmed at the
residence.[16]
2.17
More detailed questioning was focused on invitations to D Company of the
6RAR for the commemoration of the Battle of Long Tan. The Committee examined
why the event had not taken place in Canberra and the involvement of the
Department of Defence in the arrangements.[17]
2.18
The Committee also canvassed the Governor-General's recent and upcoming
travel. The planned trip to Kuwait on the 22nd February 2011 to commemorate
the first Gulf War was discussed and the Committee raised concerns for the
Governor-General's safety due to the recent unrest in the Middle East. The Committee
also discussed the Governor-General's response to the natural disasters that have
occurred around the country and the choice of the Governor-General to lead the
Australian Delegation at the World Cup bid in Zurich.[18]
2.19
The Council for the Order of Australia was discussed by the Committee
and the membership of the Council was provided. The Committee examined the
process of nominations for the Order of Australia and the role of the Official
Secretary as secretary of the Council for the Order of Australia.[19]
Department of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet
2.20
Due to the addition of arts and sport to the department's outcomes, there
were several agencies appearing before the Committee for the first time. Therefore,
questioning by the Committee covered a wide range of topics and issues. The
Committee also followed up questions from previous estimates in relation to the
PM&C enterprise agreement, the drafting of the post-election agreement
between the Government and the Australian Greens, and the Parliament House
Briefing Room.
2.21
There was extensive questioning of the COAG support unit within PM&C
in relation to the COAG goals for the coming year, particularly the agenda of
the COAG meeting on 14 February 2011. Other topics discussed with the
department regarding COAG were the seamless national economy initiatives, the
Business Regulation and Competition Working Group and the various COAG councils. [20]
2.22
The revised health agreement between the Federal Government and
the State and Territory Governments was discussed with PM&C. The Committee sought
information on changes to the National Health and Hospitals Network to which
the department responded:
...one jurisdiction had refused to sign the National Health
and Hospitals Network Agreement and there was a view that it would be desirable
to have all jurisdictions signed up to a national health reform.[21]
2.23
The Commonwealth's response to the recent natural disasters across
Australia was canvassed. The Committee questioned PM&C on what constituted
a natural disaster affected town, how the Commonwealth disaster relief fund
would be used to fund reconstruction of public assets and the role of the
social inclusion board in the recovery effort. PM&C also provided an
explanation of its role in the recovery effort and its interaction with the Attorney-General's
Department which manages the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements
(NDRRA).[22]
2.24
Other matters raised with PM&C included the Prime Minister's forthcoming
trip to the United States, the progress of the appointment of the National
Security Legislation Monitor, the whole-of-government taskforce investigating WikiLeaks
and the resignation of the housekeeper at the Lodge.[23]
2.25
In the arts and culture area, PM&C responded to questions on the
progress of the national cultural policy, the resale royalty scheme and the
future of the Australia Council.[24]
A number of arts agencies appeared before the Committee. Many agencies were
questioned on the effect of the efficiency dividend on their programs and
staffing levels. The following specific issues were raised with individual
agencies:
- Screen Australia answered questions on the 2010 Review of the
Australian Independent Screen Production Sector;
- the Government's new cultural policy and the opportunities that
could be created by the NBN were discussed with the Australia Council;
- the Committee questioned the National Film and Sound Archive on
their limited storage capacity and the possible effects of the Screen Australia
(Transfer of Assets) Bill 2010;
- the Committee discussed the National Museum of Australia's
display of frontier conflicts and upcoming 10th anniversary;
- the popular new exhibition on street art currently being shown at
the National Gallery of Australia was covered by the Committee; and
- the Committee questioned the National Library of Australia on the
progress of appointing a new Director-General, limits to physical space
available at the Library and the size of the task of digitising its resources.[25]
2.26
The Committee opened questioning of outcome two of PM&C, sport and
recreation, on the Football Federation of Australia (FFA) bid for the World
Cup. The issues covered included the cost of the bid, information on the
consultants that put together the bid and why there was not closer departmental
involvement during the process.[26]
2.27
Further questions in relation to the World Cup focused on the cost of
the campaign presentation and discussion in relation to the receipt of only one
vote for Australia. In relation to the latter, the department stated:
What the bid process was able to do was to highlight the very
real potential of Australia to host an event like this; significant support
that came from all governments, both sides of politics, and a range of football
codes in support of football in Australia.[27]
2.28
The Committee briefly questioned the Australian Sports Anti-Doping
Authority on its process for testing high profile athletes and the role of
their user-pays program.[28]
Office of the Inspector-General of
Intelligence and Security
2.29
The appearance of the Inspector-General was limited due to time
restrictions on the day. However, the Office answered questions in relation to
the progress of the inquiry into the actions of relevant Australian agencies in
the arrest and detention overseas of Mr Mamdouh Habib, an incomplete inquiry into
ASIO and complaints received during the year regarding intelligence and
security agencies.[29]
Office of National Assessments
2.30
The Office of National Assessments appeared briefly before the Committee
and answered questions relating to its new building and the increase in legal
costs over the last financial year.[30]
Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner
2.31
The Committee questioned the newly established Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner (OAIC) for the first time at additional estimates. In
response to information provided by the Clerk of the Senate, the Committee questioned
the Commissioner in relation to the provisions of the Senate's order for the
production of documents in relation to his office and powers of the
Commonwealth Parliament.[31]
The Australian Information Commissioner responded:
My view is that one cannot look at it solely from the
perspective of the powers that the parliament may assert or exercise to require
production of documents or information. It is necessary in our constitutional
and legal context to take account of the legislation establishing an office
such as mine to see, firstly, whether I do have the function to respond and,
secondly, whether it would cause any inconsistency with the legislation
establishing my office...I can only comply with the order of the Senate if it
otherwise falls within my statutory function to prepare a report...I have no
legal power to obtain access to the documents that the minister has declined to
give to the Senate.[32]
2.32
Other issues discussed included the role of the Australian Information
Commissioner in the Government's agreement with the Independent Members to promote
open and accountable government, and which Commonwealth agencies and companies are
subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Australian National Audit Office
2.33
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) answered questions from the
Committee in relation to recent requests for audits of the Australian Bureau of
Meteorology and the CSIRO. Further discussions with the ANAO covered the audit report
on the Murray-Darling Basin and the issues surrounding the purchase of
permanent water entitlements.[33]
Finance and Deregulation Portfolio
Medibank Private Ltd
2.34
In his opening statement, Mr George Savvides, Managing Director,
Medibank Private, explained the changing nature of the services provided by the
organisation including new health services and services targeting customers
with chronic disease.
2.35
The Committee returned to questions from previous estimates in relation
to dividends to be paid to the Government. Other issues raised included the
possible privatisation of Medibank, the current market value of the company and
the impacts of the Government's recently announced health reforms.
2.36
Medibank also provided an explanation of the impact of the recent
natural disasters on its staff and facilities, and its involvement in the
recovery effort.[34]
Department of Finance and
Deregulation
2.37
The Committee opened questioning of the Department of Finance and
Deregulation (Finance) on the Independent Communications Committee (ICC). Following
on from questions at previous estimates, the Committee examined the campaigns examined
by the ICC and payments made to ICC members.[35]
Furthermore, there was discussion on the involvement of the ICC in the release
of the health reform advertisements.[36]
2.38
Other issues examined by the Committee included the legal costs of the department's
Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd case, the funding review of the Australian War
Memorial and the costing of election commitments.[37]
2.39
The Committee spent time discussing the Government's contingency reserve
and its purpose in relation to the flood recovery package and the NBN.[38]
2.40
The Committee also examined the funding of the Natural Disaster Relief Fund,
sought clarification on matters in relation to the $5.6 billion flood package
and guidelines for exemptions to paying the flood levy. The role and cost of the
Australian Government Reconstruction Inspectorate was also discussed.[39]
2.41
The Government's new health reform was covered by the Committee, with
questions focused on the changes made to the policy and the structure of the
new funding arrangements. The department also provided an overview of how the Treasury
and departments of Finance and Deregulation, Health and Ageing, and the Prime
Minister and Cabinet will interact to deliver the new health package.[40]
2.42
Finance provided information to the Committee in relation to their role
in carrying out costings of two private senators' bills currently before the
Senate.[41]
The Minister explained why the costings had been carried out by the department:
The reason I put these costings into the public arena is
that, as Minister for Finance and Deregulation, I thought it was important that
senators of all parties understand what they are voting on and that they
understand the fiscal impact...My intention...would be that we do need
transparency around the fiscal impact of the legislation that non-government
senators wish to put up. If they wish to support it, I think they should be
accountable for how they say they will fund that.[42]
2.43
The Committee also examined what briefings had been provided by the
department to the Australian Greens and independent members of parliament since
the 2010 federal election.[43]
2.44
Other issues raised by the Committee included the effect the increase in
FOI requests has had on advice provided to government, total liabilities for
the year and the Australian Government Monthly Financial Statements.
Commonwealth property management, the Caucus Committee Support and Training Unit
and staff employed in the Prime Minister's office were also discussed with the
Committee.[44]
2.45
In relation to parliamentary entitlements, Finance provided information
on Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 employee entitlements,
statistics on travel of parliamentarians, information on video link-up meetings
and the monthly management reports of senators and members. Further information
was provided in relation to the transfer of responsibility for electorate
office computing services to DPS.[45]
ComSuper
2.46
The Committee questioned ComSuper on a particular matter in relation to a
former employee of a company providing contract services to ComSuper. The
Minister suggested that a private meeting with ComSuper and the member who
raised the matter would be more appropriate and the Committee accepted the
proposal.[46]
Australian Electoral Commission
2.47
The Committee questioned the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on a
variety of matters, particularly those relating to current investigations being
carried out by the agency. The AEC claimed public interest immunity during
questioning on these matters and this is discussed further at paragraphs 1.19-1.21
of this report.
2.48
The 'how should I vote' website of the organisation GetUp! and the
investigation being carried out by the AEC into whether GetUp! is an associated
entity of the Australian Labor party were discussed with the Committee.
2.49
The Committee followed up previous questions in relation to two cases currently
being investigated. In addition, the issue of fake how-to-vote-cards was addressed
as well as matters concerning electorate boundaries, the process for
establishing those boundaries and the naming of political parties.[47]
Future Fund
2.50
The Committee examined information provided by the Future Fund at the
supplementary estimates on its sell-down of Telstra shares and plans for these
shares in the future.
2.51
Other matters covered the differences between the Future Fund and the
three nation building funds, what recent changes have been made to the Future
Fund's portfolio and the progress of appointing a General Manager for the Fund.[48]
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government
2.52
The Secretary of the Department of Regional Australia, Regional
Development and Local Government (DRARDLG), Ms Glenys Beauchamp, opened the
department's evidence with an overview of the progress within the new
department since last estimates.
2.53
The Committee questioned the department on their involvement in the
flood recovery process, particularly the announcement that $77 million of local
government Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs) would be provided to flood-affected
councils.[49]
2.54
There was some confusion during the hearing around where questions on
the flood relief package should be directed. The department explained that 'the
administration of the NDRRA program is through the Attorney-General's Department,
and those guidelines and the application of NDRRA funds are...publicly
available on the website'.[50]
Further questions were asked in relation to the package, most notably how the $2
billion to be provided this financial year will be spent and the interaction
between the Federal Government, State Governments and local councils to ensure
this money is provided effectively.[51]
2.55
In addition, the Committee raised matters in relation to the Local
Government Reform Fund, the department's role as the contract manager under the
National Partnership Agreement and the Australian Centre for Excellence in
Local Government. The department also provided information on the Regional
Development Australia (RDA) Committees, their membership, regional development
plans and the RDA chairs' meeting in Canberra this year.[52]
2.56
The Committee also found there was still confusion around which programs
and projects are delivered by DRARDLG and which are delivered by the Department
of Infrastructure and Transport.[53]
The Committee encourages DRARDLG to continue to provide a program overview in its
opening statement at estimates to help clarify this situation.
2.57
The Committee spent some time questioning the department about what
constituted a regional project. The department provided the Committee with a
detailed definition of the term 'regional' and commented that ultimately the
department's projects are focused on areas outside the major cities.[54]
2.58
The branch of DRARDLG which coordinates the Office of Northern Australia
provided evidence to the Committee in relation to the Northern Australian
Sustainable Futures program, the Cairns Plan, staffing levels of the Office and
funding for the East Kimberley Project.[55]
National Capital Authority
2.59
The National Capital Authority provided information to the Committee on
the projects it is currently undertaking and its key output areas. Other issues
examined by the Committee included the increased demand for parking in the
parliamentary zone and Barton, the long-term plans for Constitution Avenue and
the long-term plan for the National Capital.[56]
Senator Helen Polley
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page