CHAIRMAN --I point out that the Australian Property Group is also listed later under another matter. There is no need for us to move into that area at this stage.

Senator CAMPBELL --I was interested to see from the figures you provided to question on notice No. 482 that approximately 88 per cent of the people in the Australian Property Group received performance pay. Do you have a breakdown per state as to where performance pay applied? If so, could that be made available to the committee?

Ms Argall --Not in terms of the aggregate.

Senator CAMPBELL --You have given me the breakup of the ratings from 1 to 5 and it showed that 47 people got a 3. Is that regarded as adequate performance by the appraisers under performance pay?

Ms Argall --No, 2 is adequate; 3 is significantly and consistently above the standard.

Senator CAMPBELL --You probably know that these ratings do change from agency to agency.

Ms Argall --Yes.

Senator CAMPBELL --Four is then regarded as exceptional.

Ms Argall --That is correct, and 5 is outstanding.

Senator CAMPBELL --No-one actually got a 5 this year. Could you, as concisely as possible, inform the committee of the broad criteria within the Australian Property Group for awarding the 3s and the 4s.

Ms Argall --The criteria in the Australian Property Group were the same as the criteria used across the Public Service.

Senator CAMPBELL --But in terms of performance in property agency functions?

Ms Argall --There is an APS-wide set of criteria and we apply that set of criteria for performance pay in relation to our staff. In analysing how our staff performed against that service-wide set of definitions, we have in our business a set of competencies for each level in the organisation, not just those categories being assessed. We also have performance agreements as required APS-wide with each one of those officers being assessed. Those assessments are based on the competencies required of those particular levels, and they also relate to our business planning objectives both nationally and regionally.

Senator CAMPBELL --You are now in open competition with private sector agencies when it comes to consultancy services for property leasings. For example, if the Department of Employment, Education and Training wants to go and find new premises in Hobart or Sydney, your agency would compete against other agencies in providing consultancy services to that department. That is correct, is it not?

Ms Argall --That is correct.

Senator CAMPBELL --If a year went by and the Sydney or Hobart office did not win a single consultancy, would that be taken into account in assessing the performance of people within one of those offices?

Ms Argall --Yes, it would.

Senator CAMPBELL --What state offices fell below your expectations in relation to the amount of business they won and the markets they were competing in?

Ms Argall --At this stage all states are performing in accordance with sales expectations.

Senator CAMPBELL --In a question taken on notice, I asked the minister to list the top 20 transactions that had been undertaken over the last two financial years. It is not a particularly good measure of regional offices because there may be some regions where there is not a lot of property activity in a given year. Part 4 of the question asked for details or a disaggregation of the fees and/or commissions received by the APG in relation to those deals. The minister refused to give those details because fees and commissions received in relation to these transactions in many cases form part of an annual service agreement covering the full range of services provided during the year and that bulk purchasing in this manner enables APG to discount the overall price, thus making disaggregation inappropriate. Are you saying that in relation to each one of those deals it is impossible to provide a discrete commission or fee?

Ms Argall --Some of the deals are done as individual deals, but to actually release those details in terms of our commissions would be actually giving away some commercial-in-confidence information.

Senator CAMPBELL --So what you are saying is that the answer to the question probably should have been that disaggregation was inappropriate and that you would be revealing what you consider to be commercial-in-confidence information?

Ms Argall --In the majority of cases we are still in a position of negotiating a total service agreement with the majority of our customers.

Senator CAMPBELL --Going back to these deals in the last two financial years, why would it be commercial-in-confidence to reveal fee income?

Ms Argall --In relation to specific commissions?

Senator CAMPBELL --Yes, commissions and fees.

Ms Argall --In relation to successful negotiations for particular projects, those commissions would actually be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. In relation to the unsuccessful commissions, they would not be available, and that is commercial-in-confidence.

Senator CAMPBELL --These are deals that are completed, so they were obviously all successful.

Ms Argall --Most of those deals, as I indicated, were part of a total service agreement with government departments and agencies.

Senator CAMPBELL --I will go back again to where I started. Some of them were not. Some of those deals were not part of a total service agreement. You have said that those fees--

Ms Argall --I would have to look at each one of those to actually be able to tell you.

Senator CAMPBELL --Could I refer you to Senate question 482, annexure A, and could I ask you to provide the details. You have already said that they are available in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette , but the minister has refused to give me details of them. Could I ask you to provide to the committee details of all of those fees and commissions that were not part of a service agreement?

Ms Argall --I will take that on notice.