Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document


Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Notice given 26 November 2002

959  Senator Conroy: To ask the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer—With respect to those persons who hold private health insurance which is eligible for the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate and who receive the benefit of the rebate as a rebate through the tax system:

(1) How many persons are covered by private health insurance by postcode and by federal electorate division, as at: (a) 31 December 2000; (b) 30 June 2002; and (c) the most current date for which information has been compiled.

(2) How many contributor units hold private health insurance by postcode and by federal electorate division, as at: (a) 31 December 2000; (b) 30 June 2002; and (c) the most current date for which information has been compiled.

960  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—

(1) Under the terms of the original contract with ADI Limited, how many Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicles were required to be produced.

(2) What were the delivery timeframes under the terms of the original contract.

(3) When was the project due to be completed under the terms of the original contract.

(4) What was the budget for the original contract, as at: (a) the time the original contract was signed on 1 June 1999; (b) 30 June 2000; (c) 30 June 2001; and (d) 30 June 2002.

(5) When was it decided that the original contract with ADI Limited needed to be revised.

(6) Under the terms of the revised contract with ADI Limited, how many Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicles are to be produced.

(7) What are the delivery timeframes under the revised contract.

(8) When is the project due to be completed under the revised contract.

(9) (a) What were the reasons for the delays in this project; and (b) have the causes of the delays been addressed under the revised contract.

(10) Were there any penalty-type clauses in the original contract with ADI Limited; if so, what did the clauses say; if not, why not.

(11) If the original contract did contain penalty-type clauses, have these clauses been invoked; if not: (a) why not; and (b) is it normal practice for the department not to invoke penalty clauses and why is this the case.

(12) (a) Does the revised contract contain penalty-type clauses; and (b) what do these clauses say.

(13) How much of the money expended on the Bushmaster project to date has been paid to ADI Limited.

(14) (a) On what basis are these payments being made to ADI Limited; and (b) are payments made on the basis of milestones; if so, can the following information be provided: (i) a list of these milestones, including dates and payments due to ADI Limited at the time of these milestones, (ii) whether these milestones were achieved, and (iii) a list of expected milestones, including payments and milestones, and the dates on which they fall due.

(15) Are there any costs associated with the delays in this project; if so, what is the nature of these costs.

(16) Under the terms of the original contract, is the department liable for any increased costs due to the delays in this project.

(17) Did the department examine options other than revising the contract with ADI Limited; if so, what alternate options were examined; if not, why not.

(18) Has consideration already been given to not proceeding with the project and terminating the contract with ADI Limited, given its inability to deliver the project on schedule?

(19) Given that, at a public hearing of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee’s inquiry into Defence materiel, Mr Roche, the Under-Secretary of the Defence Materiel Organisation, said of the Bushmaster contract with ADI Limited that, ‘if they fail, that is the end of it and the project will be finished’: Does this mean that the contract with ADI Limited will be terminated if the terms of the contract, including deliverables and key milestones, are not achieved.

(20) Given that, in announcing the original contract, the then Minister stated that, ‘Australian content will be around 70 per cent, providing significant opportunities for Australian industry to contribute to the project’: Is this the case under the revised contract; if not, what is the level of Australian content under the revised contract.

(21) What will be the impact on capability of the decision to accept the reduction in the number of Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicles under the revised contract.

961  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to the LAND 19 Phase 6 project in the Defence Capability Plan:

(1) When did the Government grant approval for this project.

(2) (a) When was the request for tender issued; and (b) what was the closing date for tenders.

(3) (a) How many tenders were submitted; and (b) which organisations submitted tenders.

(3) (a) Has the preferred tenderer been selected; (b) which organisation was the preferred tenderer; and (c) when will the contract be signed.

(4) (a) What was the budget for this project at the time approval was granted; (b) has the budget changed since approval was granted; if so, what is the current budget; and (c) why was the budget changed.

(5) (a) What is the completion date for this project; and (b) is this still the expected completion date.

(6) (a) Were any options apart from the acquisition of additional RBS 70 systems considered; (b) what were the options; and (c) why was it decided to proceed with the acquisition of additional RBS 70 systems and not the other options.

962  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to the LAND 19 project in the Defence Capability Plan:

(1) When was approval granted for this project?

(2) Can a description of all of the phases of this project be provided.

(3) (a) What was the original timeline for the completion of the project, including the dates for all phases in the project; and (b) when was it due to be completed.

(4) What was the original budget for this project, including the budget for all phases in the project.

(5) (a) What is the current schedule for the completion of this project, including the dates for all phases in the project; and (b) when is it due to be completed.

(6) What is the current budget for the project, including the budget for all phases in the project.

963  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—

(1) Can a list be provided to show those capital equipment projects worth $10 million or more that are currently behind their original schedule; for example, where the delivery and/or acceptance dates are later than originally planned.

(2) With respect to each project, can the following information be provided: (a) the original delivery date at the time the project was approved; (b) the original acceptance into service date; (c) the current expected delivery date; (d) the current expected acceptance into service date; (e) the reason or reasons for the delay; (f) whether the cost of the project has increased over the life of the project and, if so, what the increase has been; (g) the reason or reasons for any increase in project cost; and (h) whether the department has incurred any other costs because of the delay to the project and, if so, the total of these additional costs.

964  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to page 299 of the Department of Defence annual report for 2001-02, which notes that the Review of Australian Defence Force Remuneration 2001 (the ‘Nunn Review’) was delivered to the Ministers for Defence and Finance and Administration at the end of August 2001 and that a submission setting out the Department of Defence’s response to the review recommendations was forwarded to the Minister for Defence on 30 April 2002:

(1) Can a copy of the submission, setting out the department’s response to the Nunn Review recommendations, be provided.

(2) Has the Government made any response to any of the recommendations of the Nunn Review; if so: (a) what recommendations have been responded to; and (b) what was the response; if not, why not.

(3) Does the Government still plan to formally respond to the recommendations of the Nunn Review; if so, when will this occur; if not, why not.

(4) (a) Does the Government’s delay in responding to the Nunn Review have implications for the long-standing Australian Defence Force (ADF) pay structure review; and (b) does the Government still expect the department to deliver the first phase of this review late in the 2002-03 financial year.

(3) Has a new ADF Enterprise Productivity Arrangement been negotiated; if so: (a) does the new arrangement include any changes recommended by the Nunn Review; and (b) can a copy of the new arrangement be provided.

965  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—

(1) (a) What is the total budget for the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) for the 2002-03 financial year; and (b) what was the DSTO budget for each of the previous 7 financial years.

(2) Can a list of DSTO sites be provided.

(3) How many personnel, by site, are employed by DSTO.

(3) (a) How many Professional Service Providers (PSPs) are currently engaged by DSTO; (b) what is the total cost of these PSPs; (c) how many PSPs were engaged in each of the past 3 financial years by DSTO; and (d) what was the cost in each of these years.

(4) Does the department own any of the current DSTO sites; if so, does the Government plan to sell and lease back any of these sites.

(5) If there are DSTO sites that have previously been sold and are now subject to lease-back arrangements, can details be provided of the cost of these leases and when the leases will expire.

(6) Have any DSTO sites been relocated in the past 3 financial years; if so: (a) what was the nature of these relocations; and (b) what was the total cost of these relocations.

(7) Have any DSTO sites undergone refurbishments in the past 3 financial years; if so: (a) what was the nature of these refurbishments; and (b) what was the total cost of these refurbishments.

966  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to the JP 117 project in the Defence Capability Plan (DCP):

(1) Is JP 117 still an ‘unapproved project’, as listed on the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) Internet site; if so, why is this the case and when is it expected that the project will be approved; if not, when was the project approved and what is the project timetable.

(2) Can a description of all of the phases of this project be provided.

(3) What was the original timeline for the completion of the project, including the dates for all phases in the project, and when was it due to be completed.

(4) What was the original budget for this project, including the budget for all phases in the project.

(5) What is the current schedule for the completion of this project, including the dates for all phases in the project and when is it due to be completed.

(6) Given that the 2001 DCP estimates that expenditure on JP 117 Phase 2 will be $250-$350 million and the 2002 DCP supplement estimates that expenditure on JP 117 Phase 2 will be $350-$450 million: (a) Why was the funding estimate revised upwards by $100 million; and (b) what is the current estimate of expenditure on JP 117 Phase 2.

(7) The answer to question on notice no. 280 (Senate Hansard , 27 August 2002, p. 3035) stated that the Army is equipped with ground-based air defence weapon systems (GBADWS) Rapier and RBS 70: What are the limitations of these systems.

(8) The answer to question on notice no. 280 indicated that the end-of-life of the Rapier system would occur in 2005: Is this still the case.

(9) Will any capability be lost once the Rapier system is removed from service in 2005 and the RBS 70 system is the sole GBADWS until the next system is acquired under JP 117 Phase 2 in 2009.

(10) Given the limitations of the RBS 70 system, why was it decided to maintain the RBS 70 system as the sole GBADWS between 2005 and 2009, rather than acquire a new system once the Rapier system is removed from service in 2005.

(11) Were any alternatives to maintaining the RBS 70 system as the sole GBADWS between 2005 and 2009 considered; if so, why were the alternatives rejected; if not, why not.

(12) (a) When is it expected that JP 117 Phase 2 will commence; and (b) is the in-service delivery date of 2009 listed in the DCP and the response to question on notice 280 of 24 April 2002 still current.

967  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to the LAND 19 Phase 5A project in the Defence Capability Plan:

(1) When did the Government grant approval for this project.

(2) (a) When was the request for tender issued; and (b) what was the closing date for tenders.

(3) (a) How many tenders were submitted; and (b) which organisations submitted tenders.

(4) (a) When was the preferred tenderer selected; and (b) when was the contract signed.

(5) (a) What was the budget for this project at the time approval was granted; and (b) has the budget changed since approval was granted; if so, what is the current budget.

(6) What is the completion date for this project and is this still the expected completion date.

(7) When did the RBS 70 system enter service and when was the end-of-life for the RBS 70 system originally due to occur.

(8) When will the end-of-life for the RBS 70 system occur following the life-of-type extension under this project.

(9) (a) Were any options apart from a life-of-type extension considered; (b) what were the options; and (c) why was it decided to proceed with a life-of-type extension and not the other options.