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


Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Notice given 29 November 2002

973  Senator Sherry: To ask the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer—

(1) How many matters relating to insolvencies or external administrations in which applications were made for payment of entitlements under the Federal Government’s Employee Entitlements Support Scheme or General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme have been referred by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to each of: (a) the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC); and (b) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

(2) In each matter, what concerns were identified.

(3) What was the outcome of the ASIC’s and the ACCC’s consideration of each of these matters.

974  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—In relation to project Sea 1429 Phase 2, the replacement of the heavyweight torpedo:

(1) Given that, in response to question on notice no. 219 (Senate Hansard, 17 June 2002, p. 1910), it was stated that the ADCAP Mod 6 was the torpedo that would be purchased under this project, but in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee estimates hearing on 21 November 2002 it was stated that the goal for project Sea 1429 is to purchase ADCAP Mod 7 torpedoes: (a) When was the decision made to purchase ADCAP Mod 7s; and (b) why was the decision made not to purchase ADCAP Mod 6 torpedoes, as indicated in June 2002.

(2) Given that it was stated on 22 November 2002 that a limited number of ADCAP Mod 6 torpedoes would be purchased to trial the new combat system on the submarine: (a) how many ADCAP Mod 6 torpedoes will be purchased for this purpose; and (b) will ADCAP Mod 5 torpedoes also be purchased for this purpose.

(3) In terms of the integration study now underway: (a) is this study for the ADCAP Mod 6; (b) will another study be needed to install the ADCAP Mod 7; and (c) to date how much has been spent on this study.

(4) Given that, in response to question on notice no. 219, it was stated that the budget for project Sea 1429 was $200 million to $260 million, while in the Senate estimates hearing on 21 November 2002 it was stated that the budget for this project is now a total of $450m: when was the decision made to increase the budget for this project.

(5) In terms of the tender process originally started for the replacement torpedoes were any bids: (a) under $300 million in price; or (b) under $250 million in price.

(6) As at today, what is the total funding approved for Sea 1429 Phase 2.

(7) Why was the change to the funding for the project not indicated in the Defence Capability Plan Supplement released in June 2002.

(8) Has the department put a proposal to the Government for the approval of this increase in the funding for the replacement of the torpedoes; if so: (a) when was this proposal put to the Government; and (b) has approval been granted for this increase.

(9) When it was stated at the estimates hearing that funding would be provided from Phase 5 of the continual upgrade project: (a) was this referring to Phase 5 of Sea 1439; and (b) will $200 million of the funding allocated to this project be used for the purchase of new heavyweight torpedoes.

(10) (a) Is the purchase of heavyweight torpedoes outside the scope of Sea 1439 Phase 5, as described in the capability plan; (b) is approval needed to use funds allocated to Sea 1439 Phase 5 for the purchasing of the new torpedoes; and (c) has that approval been sought; if so, when.

(11) (a) What impact will the diverting of $200 million from project Sea 1439 Phase 5, for the new torpedoes, have on the implementation of this project; (b) will this not reduce the funding for the continual upgrade of the Collins Class submarine; and (c) what elements of the continual upgrade will no longer be implemented as a result.

(12) (a) In terms of the stated $450 million project budget for the replacement torpedoes, will that cover the full cost of integrating all new torpedoes into the submarine, in service support, training and purchasing the necessary training torpedoes and warstocks; and (b) are there any plans to spend additional amounts on the replacement torpedoes.

(13) Given the ADCAP Mod 7 is still under development, and therefore its price would be uncertain: (a) is there the possibility that more will have to be paid for this torpedo at a future date; (b) has a fixed price for the ADCAP Mod 7 been struck with the United States (US) Government.

(14) Of the $450 million now to be spent on the new torpedo project, how much of this will be spent on the ADCAP Mod 5s and the ADCAP Mod 6s to be used in trials of the new combat system.

(15) Of the $450 million now to be spent on the new torpedo project, how much of this will be spent contributing to the US development project of the ADCAP Mod 7.

(16) Of the $450 million now to be spent on the new torpedo project, how much of this will be spent purchasing training and warstocks of the ADCAP Mod 7.

(17) What is the current estimate on when the ADCAP Mod 7 will be in service on the Collins Class submarine.

975  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to the Defence Management Audit Branch and the answer to question on notice no. 591 (Senate Hansard, 14 October 2002, p. 5098):

(1) How many reviews have been carried out by the branch in each of the following financial years: (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-01; and (c) 2001-02.

(2) Without providing specific details about any individual review, what was the range of issues investigated by the branch.

(3) Of the reviews carried out by the branch, how many were top management directed reviews in each of the following financial years: (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-01; and (c) 2001-02.

(4) Of the reviews carried out by the branch, how many were audit investigations in each of the following financial years: (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-01; and (c) 2001-02.

(5) In terms of the audit investigations carried out by the branch in the 1999-2000 financial year: (a) how many resulted in criminal charges being laid; and (b) how many resulted in administrative action being taken against personnel.

(6) In terms of the audit investigations carried out by the branch in the 2000-01 financial year: (a) how many resulted in criminal charges being laid; and (b) how many resulted in administrative action being taken against personnel.

(7) In terms of the audit investigations carried out by the branch in the 2001-02 financial year: (a) how many resulted in criminal charges being laid; and (b) how many resulted in administrative action being taken against personnel.

(8) When a review is completed who receives the findings.

(9) Who is responsible for ensuring that any recommendations arising from the review are implemented.

(10) (a) What was the total number of recommendations arising from reviews in 1999-2000 financial year; (b) how many of those have been fully implemented; (c) how many have been partially implemented; and (d) how many have not been implemented.

(11) (a) What was the total number of recommendations arising from reviews in 2000-01 financial year; (b) how many of those have been fully implemented; (c) how many have been partially implemented; and (d) how many have not been implemented.

(12) (a) What was the total number of recommendations arising from reviews in 2001-02 financial year; (b) how many of those have been fully implemented; (c) how many have been partially implemented; and (d) how many have not been implemented.

976  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—

(1) Are retention bonuses currently payable to serving members of the Navy, Army and Air Force.

(2) In respect of each bonus: (a) what are the eligibility criteria; (b) what duration of additional service is required for payment; (c) what is the amount of the bonus; (d) what penalties apply if the additional service is not performed; (e) how many personnel received the bonus in the last year for which data is available; and (f) what is the estimated cost of providing the bonuses in the 2002-03 financial year.

(3) Since November 2000, has the Government withdrawn any existing retention bonus; if so, what was the reason for withdrawal and the date that it took effect.

(4) Since November 2000, has the Government created any additional bonuses; if so, what was the reason for doing so and the date that they took effect.

(5) Has the department conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of retention bonuses; if so, (a) when was the evaluation completed; and (b) what were the conclusions and recommendations; if not, why not.

977  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to the answer to the question on notice no. 240 (Senate Hansard, 19 August 2002, p. 3150) and the tender for portable sound projection systems for the Navy:

(1) Can a copy of the request for tender (RFT) be provided.

(2) What was the delivery date specified in the RFT.

(3) Did the RFT specify commercial off-the-shelf equipment.

(4) When was the contract awarded.

(5) Have the required specifications outlined in the RFT been amended in any way.

(6) Does the department have any concerns about the winning tenderer’s ability to deliver the required number of units that meet all specifications by March 2003.