Senator LUNDY —But I am putting it on notice anyway, and it is all here accordingly. The rest of my questions go more towards the National Capital Authority. Are they here?

Ms Gayler —No. I will check where they are.

Mr Bowdler —It is my understanding, Mr Chairman, that Mr Evans is here. Mr Grose has a National Capital Authority meeting this morning and he was planning to get here towards 10 o'clock.

CHAIR —All right, let's hear Mr Evans.

Senator LUNDY —I need to proceed anyway with commitments after that so perhaps you could take questions on notice if you are not able to answer them, Mr Evans. I will just keep moving.

CHAIR —Yes, but you will not need Mr Grose here.

Senator LUNDY —I certainly will not still be here at 10 o'clock. It depends if anyone else is.

CHAIR —If he is not needed there is no point in him coming here. That is the only thing. Yes, Senator Lundy.

Senator LUNDY —I would just like to pursue the issue of the proposed Hall rural subdivision commonly known as Kinleyside. Given that a variation to the national capital plan is required, what consultation has there been between the National Capital Authority and representatives either of the proponent of the development or the ACT government?

Mr Evans —As far as I am aware there have been no direct discussions between the proponent and the National Capital Authority. There have been some informal discussions between officials from PALM—that is, Planning and Land Management.

Senator LUNDY —Can you take on notice: were there minutes taken of those meetings or any correspondence to or from the National Capital Authority in relation to that particular development, or with respect to the liaison between the National Capital Authority and the ACT government or the Office of the Chief Minister; if that could be provided to the committee.

Mr Evans —Yes.

Senator LUNDY —Did Mr John Walker, who was then head of the Chief Minister's Department who signed the contract with the proponent, Derek Whitcomb, have any consultations with his federal counterparts in the territories department or the NCA before he signed that contract on behalf of the ACT government? This is to you both.

Mr Evans —I am not aware of any.

Ms Gayler —I am not aware of any.

Senator LUNDY —Obviously it is a rhetorical question in many respects, but that means Mr Walker signed this contract without discussing it with his federal counterparts, despite there being national capital plan implications. What has been the federal government's reaction to that planned deal since it was signed on 13 January?

Mr Evans —If it was to proceed we would embark upon a normal process to amend the plan, but my understanding is that it is not guaranteed to proceed.

Senator LUNDY —When were the NCA, and indeed the Territory Liaison Unit, first formally aware of the existence of that deal?

Ms Gayler —In my case when the proponent came to meet me.

Senator LUNDY —So he advised you that he had a signed document with John Walker at that meeting.

Ms Gayler —I did not know it was a document with Mr Walker.

Senator LUNDY —What were you advised by the proponent at that time, Ms Gayler?

Ms Gayler —I was advised that there was a preliminary agreement with the ACT government and that it was confidential.

Senator LUNDY —Was that the extent of the detail you were afforded at that meeting?

Ms Gayler —I was informed about the scale of the development and some of those sorts of matters.

Senator LUNDY —Were you advised that the project had the support of the Chief Minister?

Ms Gayler —Yes.

Senator LUNDY —Mr Evans?

Mr Evans —I was not party to any of the discussions. I will take it on notice, if I may, because the officers involved are not here.

Senator LUNDY —If you could take the same questions on notice: at what point did you become formally aware of the arrangement; and if you could provide the committee with any correspondence, memos, press releases or anything that the NCA has said and done in response to that particular deal.

Mr Evans —Yes.

Senator LUNDY —As the planned Hall subdivision was against the draft original plan which has been endorsed by the neighbouring federal electorate, what steps will the federal government take to ensure that no such deals occur in the future without the scrutiny of this parliament? It is a question going to what, as either a Territory Liaison Unit or a National Capital Authority, you are able to do to ensure that deals of this nature are not stitched up and become legally binding prior to your being able to deal with the federal consequences. Perhaps, Minister, this is best directed at you.

Senator Parer —I will refer it to the minister, Senator. I really have no idea what you are talking about, but I will refer it to him.

Senator LUNDY —I am always appreciative of your interest. Can I ask the department if they have put any steps in place to address this issue of procedure or of process?

Ms Varova —No, we have not. In essence I do not think we would have the capacity to interfere with the workings of another government. I think that is where our limits would lie. Obviously if there arrangements or agreements made that impact on legislation, it is only in that regard that we could proceed to take action.

Senator LUNDY —Okay, thank you. When did the relocation of the NCA to its new position in the department actually occur?

Ms Varova —The NCA is not part of the department, Senator.

Senator LUNDY —So it exists as a separate statutory operation?

Ms Varova —Yes, it is a separate statutory body. Our division and the NCA in October last year, through administrative changes, changed portfolios.

Senator LUNDY —Yes, that is what I mean.

Ms Varova —Yes, that is right. That was in early October. We moved from the Department of Environment, Sport and Territories to the transport and regional development department, and the NCA also came into that broader portfolio.

Senator LUNDY —What prompted that change?

Mr Bowdler —That was the result of the reshuffle when the then minister, John Sharp, stepped down. There were a number of machinery government changes, and just as the maritime function went over to the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business, we gained local government and territories functions to go with our then regional development function, and the NCA came over with that as part of that grouping.

Senator LUNDY —Who was the proponent of that restructuring within government?

Mr Bowdler —Machinery of government changes essentially come from the Prime Minister and his advisers.

Senator LUNDY —In terms of guidance from the Prime Minister, is that through PM&C, for example, or can you describe how it actually happens. I have not had the experience of being in government, you see.

Mr Bowdler —It is a bit mysterious to us people out in the provinces, so to speak, of the Public Service at times, Senator, but quite often during a term of government, or certainly after an election and so on, there are machinery of government changes that take place. There is a process of discussion at essentially a political level with key advisers. There may be some questions asked of departments, but generally we find out about it when we see the statement from the Prime Minister, and that has been the way of the world for some years now.

Senator LUNDY —With respect to the restructuring, the reshuffle of the department, are you aware of the existence of any blueprint with respect to the management of particularly the Australian Capital Territory within the various ranges of federal portfolios? Is there a guideline, or have you seen any document that sets out a bit of a plan as to how the ACT is going to be dealt with?

Mr Bowdler —I am not aware of any particular plan or the strategy behind the change with respect to those dealings with the ACT. From the Department of Transport and Regional Development's point of view, we inherited these functions. We were pleased to have them on board and we have worked to absorb them into the broader department and to take up the issues with our new minister as well. We gained a new minister in this process, so we have worked with him as well. I do not know if my colleagues can answer that, but it was just standard machinery of government changes, as far as I could see.

Ms Varova —There is no blueprint or any such document that I am aware of, Senator.

Senator LUNDY —I have not got the clipping with me, but I understand that in response to the parliamentary committee review on government recommendations about committee structures, the National Capital Authority was either quoted or referenced in the newspaper as saying that they were of the view that the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories was important and a critical part of the planning processes in the ACT. Can you just confirm that and perhaps take on notice the provision of any public statements or expressions of view in relation to that matter.

Mr Evans —That committee is actually a very useful instrument of government on our behalf.

Senator LUNDY —Ms Gayler, in terms of the Territory Liaison Unit, have you ever received any expressions of view from constituents or business representatives, or in fact
discussed the issue of the role of that particular committee, either at a ministerial forum or within your general duties?

Ms Gayler —No, Senator. The proposals relating to changes to parliamentary committees I think came to light, at least from my perspective, only very recently, and I have had no such submission.

Senator LUNDY —Given that you are conducting an internal review of planning, do you think that such a critical element of the amendments to the national capital plan that that particular committee's review processes provide should form a part of your internal review?

Ms Gayler —I think the committee structures are a matter for the parliament, Senator.

Senator LUNDY —Was either the Territory Liaison Unit or the National Capital Authority asked to provide a submission to that particular review?

Ms Gayler —No.

Mr Evans —I am not aware of a submission, Senator.

Senator LUNDY —Could you take that on notice. Yesterday we heard from Ms Gayler that the Acting Chief Executive of the National Capital Authority and the Chair of the National Capital Authority were consulted with respect to the internal planning review. Was there anyone else within the NCA consulted?

Mr Evans —On that matter, Senator, no.

Senator LUNDY —Has the NCA provided a submission or a written expression of view to the Territory Liaison Unit with respect to the internal planning review?

Ms Gayler —Not at this stage.

Senator LUNDY —Have you sought one?

Ms Gayler —Yes, and they are expected shortly.

Senator LUNDY —Can you provide that information to the committee when it becomes available. You can take that on notice.

Ms Gayler —The matter is cabinet[hyphen]in[hyphen]confidence, as I explained yesterday.

Senator LUNDY —Yes. Could you take that on notice and seek a response from the minister anyway. Yesterday we heard that this internal review has been going for quite a length of time—I think we identified since September last year. Is there any reason why you are only seeking a written response from the National Capital Authority now?

Ms Gayler —The draft paper has only recently been circulated. The work has not been under way consistently through that period. We were occupied on other matters for a considerable number of months, including budget matters, and so we have only recently got the paper to a draft stage for circulation.

Senator LUNDY —Is there any reason why you did not employ the expertise and services of the National Capital Authority in the preparation of that draft?

Ms Gayler —We have involved the National Capital Authority at various stages.

Senator LUNDY —But only in consultations with the chief executive and the chairman as opposed to the expertise contained within the organisation.

Ms Gayler —That is not so, Senator. At an early stage, one of my staff was posted with the NCA to work with them in a preliminary way.

Senator LUNDY —That is contradictory to what I have heard up to this point. Were they aware that they were working on an internal planning review at the time?

Ms Gayler —They were aware we were doing a piece of work, looking at the Commonwealth's role—

Senator LUNDY —Was the NCA aware of that placement relating specifically to an internal planning review?

Mr Evans —I was not there at the time.

Senator LUNDY —If you could take that on notice, please.

Mr Evans —If I may just clarify my previous answer; I think the question was: was the NCA consulted on the draft document beyond those two? And the answer to that is no.

Senator LUNDY —Okay, yes. If you could take that question on notice and just clarify what your degree of awareness was of the purpose of this—was it a secondment?

Ms Gayler —No, it was—

Senator LUNDY —An outposting?

Ms Gayler —an outposting.

Senator LUNDY —An officer from the Territory Liaison Unit to the NCA?

Ms Gayler —Yes.

Senator LUNDY —Was the board of the National Capital Authority advised of this internal planning review?

Mr Evans —The authority would have been aware, as other members of staff were aware that it was under way.

Senator LUNDY —Can you provide the committee with any correspondence to or from the authority in relation to the conduct of this review.

Mr Evans —I will.

Senator LUNDY —Thank you. Minister, can you provide assurances that there will be no diminution of responsibility by the federal parliament for planning issues currently under the jurisdiction of the National Capital Authority and, indeed, the federal government?

Senator Parer —Senator, I suspect that this is part of the process of the review that is going on between the ACT government and the federal government. That is right, isn't it?

Senator LUNDY —It is not necessarily, Minister. I am asking you, obviously, a question going directly to your policy.

Senator Parer —I cannot tell you the position. You said `will ever' or something.

Senator LUNDY —I am asking you to provide an assurance that there will be no diminution or reduction of responsibility by the federal parliament for planning issues currently under the jurisdiction of the NCA and the federal government.

Senator Parer —No, Senator, I do not think that I can prejudge an outcome of a review. I think that is what you are asking us to do.

Senator LUNDY —I am indeed, Minister, and the fact that your response indicates that this review is about measuring and reassessing the role of the federal government on planning issues actually answers my question.

Senator Parer —I am happy to refer that, but I would presume you could not prejudge the outcome of a review.

Senator LUNDY —In terms of the terms of reference of this review, we have found it very difficult to get a clear picture of the motivation behind this review and the considerations and potential outcomes that the government is looking for. If in fact the government is looking
to readjust its role in territory planning issues, then that is what I would like to find out. That is what I would like to know.

Senator Parer —You are probably aware of the fact, Senator, that the review came about because the ACT's Chief Minister wrote to the Prime Minister seeking to clarify the respective roles of the two governments. The department has prepared an options paper, which is being used for internal consultation to develop the Commonwealth position. Following the development of the Commonwealth position, it is envisaged there would be consultation of the ACT government, and any changes will of course be subject to the appropriate parliamentary processes. For example, in the case of amendments to the national capital plan, refer to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories.

Senator LUNDY —With respect to the correspondence forwarded from the Chief Minister to the Prime Minister's office, can that correspondence be provided to the committee?

Senator Parer —I will refer it to the minister, Senator.

Senator LUNDY —Thank you. I just have a few questions now with respect to the appointment of the new chief executive of the National Capital Authority. When was this position first advertised?

Ms Varova —We will have to take that on notice, Senator. I cannot recall the exact date.

Senator LUNDY —About when?

Ms Varova —About December, I believe, but we would have to check.

Senator LUNDY —It was an executive search agency contracted?

Ms Gayler —Yes.

Senator LUNDY —Who were they and at what cost?

Ms Gayler —Morgan and Banks was the firm. I am not aware of the cost. The NCA has met those costs.

Senator LUNDY —Can you take that on notice?

Mr Evans —Yes.

Senator LUNDY —What was the brief to the executive search agency; that is, salary range, selection criteria and other relevant matters in terms of who they were looking for?

Ms Gayler —I do not have those details to hand. I would need to check.

Senator LUNDY —Was an architect specified?

Ms Gayler —No.

Senator LUNDY —Was it identified as a preference?

Ms Gayler —My recollection there was a range of professional and management experience sought.

Senator LUNDY —How is the salary set for that position?

Ms Gayler —It is set by the Remuneration Tribunal.

Senator LUNDY —At what level?

Ms Gayler —I do not have that information to hand. I can provide it, Senator.

Senator LUNDY —What is the involvement of the Territory Liaison Unit with this?

Ms Gayler —We were involved at two stages. One was in getting the recruitment process started and the executive search firm arranged, and then, at the very end of the process, preparing the documentation for the minister and Executive Council. We were not involved in the selection.

Senator LUNDY —Why were you involved in that administrative process, given that it is a National Capital Authority appointment and they are a statutory authority?

Ms Gayler —The department looks after the legislative and cabinet and executive appointment matters.

Senator LUNDY —That is specified.

Ms Gayler —Yes. And we do that in consultation with the NCA.

Senator LUNDY —Yes. Have you been involved in any other appointments within that role?

Ms Gayler —We have not. Apart from vacancies on the board of the NCA, which we also handle, there have not been any others, to my knowledge.

Senator LUNDY —Thank you. When did applications close?

Ms Gayler —I do not recall. I will have to check.

Senator LUNDY —How many responses were received?

Ms Varova —We were not involved in the actual process, Senator.

Senator LUNDY —So how was that managed?

Ms Gayler —It was managed by the executive search firm and a selection panel.

Senator LUNDY —Who was the selection panel?

Ms Gayler —The selection panel consisted of the chairman, Air Marshal David Evans, the Secretary of the department, Mr Alan Hawke, a representative from the Chief Minister's department—

Senator LUNDY —Why was the Chief Minister's department involved?

Ms Gayler —The Chief Minister's department was invited to nominate a representative because of the important relationship between the ACT and Commonwealth roles in planning in the national capital.

Senator LUNDY —Are you aware of any other selection process that has brought in a representative from a different government to participate in the panel?

Ms Gayler —The Commonwealth recently participated in the selection of the head of the planning and land management group in the ACT.

Senator LUNDY —Who was the representative from the Chief Minister's?

Ms Gayler —I will take this on notice. The name has escaped me.

Senator LUNDY —If you could ask an officer to find out that name for us now, that would be most useful. Are there any other representatives on the selection panel?

Ms Gayler —Yes, I think there was one other, and I do not recall the name. As I said, we were not involved in the actual selection process.

Senator LUNDY —If you could provide the other name also on the selection panel. So who made the decision about who the selection panel was?

Ms Gayler —There was discussion between the chairman of the NCA, the executive search firm, Morgan and Banks, the secretary of the department, and a recommendation to the minister as to the composition of the selection panel.

Senator LUNDY —Was any correspondence or discussion between the Chief Minister's department or the Chief Minister's office involved in that consideration?

Ms Gayler —There was a letter to the Chief Minister's department. At that time the ACT government was in pre-election period and so it was considered inappropriate to deal on that
matter with the ACT government. A letter went to the head of the Chief Minister's department inviting a nominee.

Senator LUNDY —If you could provide all correspondence for that appointment that does not achieve some commercial-in-confidence.

Ms Gayler —It will not be commercial-in-confidence, it will be cabinet.

Ms Varova —It will be cabinet[hyphen]in[hyphen]confidence considerations, Senator, because it is a cabinet—

Senator LUNDY —I will leave it up to you to draw it to the minister's attention that—

Ms Varova —Yes. It is a cabinet appointment.

Senator LUNDY —Were there any late applications?

Ms Gayler —We did not handle the applications. They were handled by the executive search firm.

Senator LUNDY —In terms of scrutiny of process, to whom do I address these questions about the selection process and get answers?

Ms Gayler —We can take questions on notice and endeavour to find out for you.

Senator LUNDY —Okay, just find out if there were any late applications, and also if there was any acceptance of late applications. At the time of the executive search, was there any amendment or change to the package offered in that original search during the process, at application?

Ms Gayler —Not to the salary, Senator.

Senator LUNDY —Were there any other changes to the package?

Ms Gayler —There was a package.

Senator LUNDY —What were the changes?

Ms Gayler —I do not have those changes.

Senator LUNDY —Could you provide those to the committee?

Ms Gayler —I think I will need to seek advice from the Remuneration Tribunal.

Senator LUNDY —Yes, and perhaps while you are there, ask the Remuneration Tribunal if they received any application or submission or request to reconsider the salary level payable to the position of Chief Executive of the National Capital Authority.

Ms Gayler —They did, and they declined to do so.

Senator LUNDY —Can you tell me what you know about that?

Ms Gayler —There was a proposal that the salary was not competitive.

Senator LUNDY —Who put that proposal to the Remuneration Tribunal?

Ms Gayler —The chairman, I think. The Remuneration Tribunal retained the salary. The salary is adjusted periodically as the Remuneration Tribunal established salaries are. The salary has been adjusted in the normal course but in no special way.

Senator LUNDY —If you could provide correspondence to the committee relating to the chairman, or whoever it was, making an application or a request to the Remuneration

Tribunal, and also the response from the Remuneration Tribunal. If there was a change to the package offered after applications closed, is it normal process to readvertise the position?

Ms Gayler —I am not aware of that, Senator.

Senator LUNDY —Could you take on notice what the standard process is and, if there was a change to the package either during or after applications had closed, why the decision was made not to readvertise given the different terms.

Ms Gayler —I think, Senator, that executive packages are normally these days negotiated with prospective candidates, so it would be, I think, quite normal for a package to be finally settled in negotiations.

Senator LUNDY —I appreciate that, Ms Gayler, but we are talking about a Remuneration Tribunal field, if you like, of salary, and it is not my understanding that that negotiation would occur outside of the scope of what the Remuneration Tribunal has set in place for that particular position. So if you could provide any information that you have with respect to fluctuations in the salary package offered, either correspondence to or from your unit, the National Capital Authority, or, indeed, the Remuneration Tribunal, that would be most useful. If you could also provide a complete consecutive date order of events relating to the application process for consideration by the selection panel, decisions, dates of decisions, and any appropriate documentation, that would also be useful. That is all I have.

Senator CALVERT —As a member of the Public Works Committee, and a former member of local government, I never cease to be amazed about how we have got in this city two planning authorities to approve one—

Senator LUNDY —You are expressing a highly controversial political view, Senator Calvert. Are you aware of that?

Senator CALVERT —Well, I do not mind. Isn't it a fact, Senator Lundy, that something like five different jurisdictions control Commonwealth Avenue between here and Civic?

Senator LUNDY —It depends whom you speak to.

Senator CALVERT —Is that right?

Senator LUNDY —Perhaps then you should put on notice to the minister what is his view—

Senator CALVERT —I am not asking you, I am asking—

Senator LUNDY —No, I am asking as well. I am thinking this is a great idea, to ask the minister what his view is with respect to the future of the National Capital Authority, and their role in planning in the ACT.

Senator Parer —On the brief that I have before me, Senator, all I can say is that the important role played by the Commonwealth and National Capital Authority will be safeguarded. But I think Senator Calvert was asking a much broader question in regard to things like unnecessary red tape and streamlining of approval processes, which the government is committed to look at.

Senator CALVERT —Yes. If you live in Barton, for instance, and you want to put in a new driveway, you have got to get approval from the ACT Planning Authority and the National Capital Authority, too, don't you?

Mr Grose —I do not think a driveway would need approval, as such.

Senator CALVERT —I am surprised. Everything else needs approval around here.

Mr Grose —Generally there is only one planning authority that has that sort of responsibility in any one area.

Senator CALVERT —But I thought I heard the territories minister and the ACT Chief Minister talk about cutting out all this duplication. Is that true?

Mr Grose —It is not so much duplication. The national capital plan sets out broad principles to be followed across the whole of the ACT plan, and the ACT planning agency—the Planning
and Land Management Group, it is called—fleshes out the detail of that in most areas of Canberra. In other areas the National Capital Authority is the planning authority, typically in areas of great national importance, like the parliamentary triangle.

Senator CALVERT —There are times, of course, when both planning authorities do not have the same opinion about a particular building.

Mr Grose —I am not sure about a particular building but—

Senator CALVERT —Or a particular project—put it that way.

Mr Grose —That can happen because the objectives of the two—

Senator CALVERT —It did happen. We had these buildings proposed for Barton. Anyway, it did not come to pass, but I recall that at the time that we were having the public hearings, I just could not believe we had two different planning groups in the same city, with two different opinions. Anyway.

Mr Grose —There are many jurisdictions where two agencies have responsibilities. In the states typically there is a state planning agency, and then there are local planning agencies. Local councils have planning responsibilities.

Senator CALVERT —Yes. Before you go, I understand there is an expo in Darwin later in the year, and that the Australian capital region may be represented there. Is that true, or is there any proposal that any funds are going to be put into it by the ACT, that is, the expo that is being held in Darwin later in the year? I understand the Australian capital region is going to put a display up. Are you going to be involved?

Ms Varova —Yes. Our minister will be attending the expo, Senator.

Senator CALVERT —Are any funds being provided for that display?

Ms Gayler —Yes, $15,000 has been provided to the Australian capital region to participate, and an officer from my branch will be attending to assist the regional development council at the expo.

Senator CALVERT —I also understand that the territories minister has established a forum to meet certain business leaders. Could you tell me a bit about that forum, what is involved, and what it is about, what it aims to do?

Ms Varova —I think you are referring to the business ministerial forum, Senator. That was originally set up by the former minister, Warwick Smith, and the objective of the ministerial council was to provide a forum for the Commonwealth and ACT governments and for business representatives within the ACT to exchange information, to debate certain issues of current significance, and to primarily further the relationship, the cooperation between those groupings, so that they could work together more effectively in relevant areas. Certainly the ministerial council has, from feedback we have received from those business representatives and from the ACT government, been reasonably successful in providing that forum.

Senator CALVERT —Does it meet on a regular basis?

Ms Varova —Yes, it does.

Senator CALVERT —And is it well supported by business people?

Ms Varova —Very much so.

Senator CALVERT —What sort of feedback have you been getting from it?

Ms Varova —From the business representatives certainly we have had very positive feedback that it is very much a forum where they can put issues on the table which obviously concern them, and where the Commonwealth and the ACT government may have some role, be that
facilitation, support or information, and so the feedback generally has been very positive from those representatives.

Senator CALVERT —I suppose the shopping mall at Manuka may have been mentioned on more than one occasion.

Ms Varova —No, it does not deal with those sort of issues, Senator. They are more ACT government responsibilities. This is more where the Commonwealth, the ACT government and business may have a common interest.

ACTING CHAIR (Senator Calvert) —Have you got any further questions? Senator O'Brien.

Senator O'BRIEN —Not on this subject. I want to go back to the territories.