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


Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Notice given 24 February 2003

1175  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Can a copy of the Livestock Export Accreditation Program Rules of Accreditation be provided; if not, why not.

1176  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Has the Australian Government received representations from the Kuwaiti Government or the Livestock Transport & Trading Co. (LT&T) in relation to the decision to suspend the live export licence of the LT&T wholly-owned subsidiary Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd; if so: (a) when were these representations received; and (b) what was the nature of the Government’s response.

1177  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—

(1) Can a table be provided of all live export reportable mortality incidents since March 2000, including the following details: (a) export licence holder; (b) month; (c) year; (d) origin; (e) destination; (f) animal type; (g) number exported; (h) mortality number; and (i) mortality rate.

(2) Can details be provided of the total number of live export shipments for each of the following financial years: (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-01; (c) 2001-02; and (d) 2002-03.

1178  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—

(1) Was Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd accredited under the Livestock Export Accreditation Program when its export licence was suspended in January 2003.

(2) Is Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd currently accredited under the Livestock Export Accreditation Program.

(3) Was Sampak Pty Ltd accredited under the Livestock Export Accreditation Program when its export licence was cancelled in November 2002.

(4) Is Sampak Pty Ltd currently accredited under the Livestock Export Accreditation Program.

1179  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—

(1) Did the livestock vessel Al Shuwaikh depart Portland, on or about 9 January 2003, carrying livestock bound for a foreign destination; if so: (a) when did the vessel depart; and (b) what was its destination.

(2) Which company owns and operates the vessel.

(3) Which company held the export licence for the transit of these livestock.

(4) Is this company a partly- or wholly-owned subsidiary of Livestock Transport & Trading Co.

1180  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Can details be provided of the mechanism for the collection of mortality data in relation to live animal exports.

(2) How is the data collected.

(3) How is the data verified.

(4) What protocols exist for the transmission of the data to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

(5) Why did the department reject recommendation nine of the investigation into excessive livestock mortality aboard the MV Kalymnian Express (voyage 07/99), namely that: ‘The method of calculating the mortality rate for a voyage should take into account all livestock which perished as a result of undertaking the voyage including animals which are destroyed after discharge or die as a result of injuries suffered in the course of the voyage.’

1181  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—With reference to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) bulletin no. 1, February 2003:

(1) What activities did AQIS undertake in relation to the recent US Navy battle group visit to Fremantle.

(2) How many staff provided these services.

(3) On what days were these services provided.

(4) What was the full cost of delivering these services.

(5) Did staff costs include overtime costs; if so, can details be provided of the overtime costs incurred.

(6) Were any costs recovered from the US Navy for the provision of these services.

(7) Did AQIS officers supervise the collection, transport and burial of waste from these vessels; if so: (a) what waste was generated; and (b) when and where was it buried.

1182  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to Project Sea 1390, the project to upgrade the Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigates (FFGs):

(1) What is the latest estimate of the delay with this project.

(2) Can an update be provided of the problems that are being experienced with the combat system software.

(3) What are the latest estimates of when the first ship will commence the upgrade program and when the last ship will be finished.

(4) Is the Minister confident that the delay will not increase beyond 2 years.

(5) What action has the Minister taken to ensure that the delay will not increase beyond 2 years.

(6) What are the proposed commencement and completion dates for the each of the ships that will be upgraded.

(7) With reference to evidence given to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee estimates hearing on 12 February 2003 ( Hansard , p. 47): When is it expected that HMAS Sydney and HMAS Newcastle will next be deployed to the Gulf

(8) Will the proposed deployment of HMAS Sydney to the Gulf alter the date on which it is proposed that the ship will commence its upgrade.

(9) How much will it cost to upgrade each of the FFGs.

(10) Given the claim, in the response to question on notice W13(a) from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee estimates hearings, on 21 November 2002, that a 2-year delay did not warrant a reconsideration of the viability of the project: If the delays increase further, at what point would the viability of the project be reconsidered.

(11) (a) Which of the FFGs have been in the Gulf since the contract for the upgrade project was signed in June 1999; and (b) what were the dates of each of these deployments.

(12) With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1041 which indicates that ‘the overall combat system performance [of the FFGs] does not meet current capability requirements’: What are the implications of this statement for HMAS Darwin which is currently stationed in the Gulf.

(13) Is HMAS Darwin more vulnerable to attack given the inadequacies of its combat system.

(14) With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 324 (Senate Hansard , 19 August 2002, p. 3191), which indicates that the presence of the FFGs in the Gulf would be reviewed ‘should [the] environment change’, and in view of these and other comments about the deficiencies in the combat system software and the ‘environment change’ that has occurred in the Gulf: Has the presence of the FFGs in that region been reviewed; if so, what was the outcome of this review; if not, why not.

(15) Given the deficiencies in its combat system software was the option of recalling HMAS Darwin and not deploying any of the other FFGs to the Gulf considered; if so, what was the outcome; if not, why not.

(16) Were the inadequacies in the combat system software on HMAS Sydney and HMAS Newcastle considered before it was decided to deploy these ships to the Gulf later in 2003; if so, why was it decided to proceed with the deployments; if not, why not.

(17) What is the latest estimate of the total budget for this project.

(18) With reference to page 62 of the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2002- 03, which states that the forecast expenditure on the project in the 2002-03 financial year is $208 million, and the response to question on notice W18(a) from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee estimates hearings on 21 November 2002, which suggested that $175 million was to be spent in the 2002-03 financial year: (a) why are these figures different; (b) what is the correct forecast for expenditure in the the 2002-03 financial year; and (c) can a breakdown be provided of forecast expenditure in the 2002-03 financial year.

(19) How much of the budget for the 2002-03 financial year will be paid to ADI Limited.

(20) (a) How much of the $642 million that had been paid to ADI Limited by the end of the 2001-02 financial year was subsequently paid to subcontractors; and (b) can details be provided for all the financial years since the project commenced, including the name of the contractor, the amount paid and the basis of payment.

(21) (a) Which organisation has the contract to develop the combat system software; and (b) is ADI Limited confident that there will not be any further slippage in the development of this element.

(22) Given the response to question on notice W21(a) from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee estimates hearings on 21 November 2002, which indicated that the question of liability for delays had yet to be finalised, and given that the same response was provided in the answer to question on notice no. 342 (Senate Hansard , 19 August 2002, p. 3191): (a) has this issue been resolved yet; if not, why is it taking so long to be resolved; and (b) when is it expected that the matter will be resolved.

(23) Can a copy of the liquidated damages clause in the contract with ADI Limited be provided.

(24) Given the response to question on notice W21(c) from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee estimates hearings on 21 November 2002, which indicated that liquidated damages clauses are used to address ‘performance shortcomings’: Is a 2-year delay in a contract considered to be a performance shortcoming; if so, has the liquidated damages clause in the contract with ADI been invoked; if not, why not.

(25) If a 2-year delay is not enough for the damages clause to be invoked: (a) at what point will this occur; and (b) why is this the case.

1183  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to the JP 2062 project in the Defence Capability Plan (DCP):

(1) Can an outline be provided of all of the phases of this project.

(2) Did former Minister John Moore’s announcement on 1 March 1999 relate to phase one of the project.

(3) Was there a request for tender (RFT) issued for phase one of this project; if so: (a) when was the request for tender issued; (b) how many organisations submitted tenders; (c) what were the names of those organisations; and (d) on what basis was the deal with the United States Air Force chosen.

(4) If no RFT was issued: (a) why not; (b) on what basis was the deal with the US Air Force chosen without a tender round.

(5) What was the original budget for phase one of the project.

(6) What is the cost of phase one of the project to date.

(7) What was the original timing on phase one of the project.

(8) (a) Has phase one now concluded; and (b) when did it conclude.

(9) (a) What was the original timing for phase two of the project; and (b) what is the current timing.

(10) (a) Why was a spokeswomen from the Minister’s office quoted on page 5 of the Australian of 7 February 2003, warning that, ‘cost blowouts associated with the Global Hawk program might delay any final purchase decision’; and (b) what did the spokeswoman mean by the statement.

(11) What are the ‘cost blowouts’ that have been experienced with the project.

(12) (a) What implications do the spokeswoman’s comments have for phase two of the project; (b) is the timing specified in the DCP still on target (for year of decision and delivery date); if not, why not; and (c) what is the new timing for the year of decision.

(13) Is the budget for phase two still in the order of $100 to $150 million, as specified in the DCP; if not, why is this the case.

(14) How would any delays with this project impact on future capability.

1184  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 964 (Senate Hansard, 4 February 2003, p. 210), which indicated that the Government had not responded to any of the recommendations of the Review of Australian Defence Force Remuneration 2001 (‘the Nunn Review’), and given that the former Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Mr Scott, indicated on 5 October 2001 that the Government had ‘decided to set aside the recommendations concerning accommodation in Chapter 8 of the Review’:

(1) Have the recommendations concerning accommodation in Chapter 8 of the review been set aside or are the recommendations still under consideration, despite the former Minister’s assurance that they had been set aside.

(2) If these recommendations are still being considered by the Government, why did the former Minister announce on 5 October 2001 that they had been set aside.

1185  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to Defence asset sales:

(1) What progress has been made in selling the $722 million worth of assets that were forecast to be sold in the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2002-03 .

(2) Does the $560 million worth of proposed sales that has been carried over from previous years form part of the $722 million for the 2002-03 financial year.

(3) What are the receipts from asset sales that have occurred so far in the 2002-03 financial year.

(4) (a) Can a list be provided of assets that have been disposed of so far in the 2002-03 financial year, including the sale price of each of these assets; and (b) when did each of these assets first come up for sale.

(5) Has the department subsequently leased back any of these assets; if so: (a) what are the lease arrangements; and (b) what rent is being paid.

(6) (a) Can a list, including relevant dates, be provided of Defence property that has been sold and leased back since the 1995-96 financial year; and (b) can details be provided of all of the leases, including the rent being paid for each of these properties.

(7) (a) Can a list be provided of assets that the department expects will be disposed of before the end of the 2002-03 financial year; and (b) when did each of these assets first come up for sale.

(8) Does the department intend to lease back any of these properties.

1186  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to the Minister’s letter, dated 12 February 2003, advising that a response to question on notice no. 769 concerning the use of professional services providers (PSP) by the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) had been withdrawn, and given the attempts by the DMO to correct its evidence to a public hearing on 15 November 2002 of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee’s inquiry into materiel acquisition and management in defence:

(1) Why has the DMO been unable to provide information on the number of PSP contracts in place, and the value of those contracts, in a timely and accurate manner.

(2) How much has been spent by the department in each of the financial years since 1995-96, and for the 2002-03 financial year to date, on: (a) consultants; and (b) professional services.

(3) How much has been spent by the DMO in each of the financial years since it was established, and for the 2002-03 financial year to date, on: (a) consultants; and (b) professional services.

(4) How many PSP contracts have been entered into by the DMO in each of the financial years since it was established, and for the 2002-03 financial year to date.

(5) (a) Is it expected that the number of PSP contracts entered into, and expenditure on these contracts, will continue to increase; (b) why; and (c) what are the implications of this for the permanent workforce.

(6) (a) How many PSP contracts are currently in place in the DMO; and (b) what is the total value of these contracts.

1187  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—

(1) Must all recruits to the new commando company, announced on 19 December 2002, come from within existing Army ranks, or can they be deployed from outside the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

(2) Will the company have any counter-terrorist skills that, prior to its raising, the ADF did not have.

(3) Precisely what, if any, capabilities will the new company have which are different to those of the Incident Response Regiment (IRR).

(4) Do the company and the IRR seek recruits with similar skill sets.

(5) (a) Has the company been raised; (b) what are the target numbers for: (i) key capability, and (ii) support staff; and (c) can a list be provided of: (i) the total target number, and (ii) the target for each year until the company is expected to be fully operational.

(6) How many personnel have enlisted to the company so far.

(7) (a) When is the company expected to be fully operational; and (b) what definition is being used for ‘fully operational’.

(8) (a) How does the new Special Operations Command, announced by the Prime Minister on 19 December 2002, change the way our special forces are given their instructions (i.e. what differences are there in practice flowing from this new command structure).

(9) What are the terms of reference of the request by the Prime Minister to the Chief of the Defence Force to develop proposals for an expanded role for the Reserves, as referred to in the Prime Minister’s counter-terrorist announcement of 19 December 2002.

(10) (a) What is the nature of the additional involvement by Reserves in domestic counter-terrorist response being considered; and (b) in particular, is any proposal being considered or developed for the Reserves to be involved in responding to a terrorist threat against state assets, without prior request from the state for Defence assistance.

(11) Are there thought to be any gaps in domestic security arrangements in light of which proposals for an expanded role for Reserves are being considered.

(12) Are the proposals under development for an expanded role for the Reserves for them to assist only after a terrorist attack in Australia (i.e. as part of response operations), or are any proposals being developed for their call-up before an attack.

(13) What is the timetable for development of, and reporting to Government on, the proposal relating to a counter-terrorist role for the Reserves .

(14) Will any proposals for an expanded Reserves role be put to Cabinet.

(15) Is any consultation on the proposals being considered occurring: (a) with any Reserves bodies; if so, can a list be provided; and (b) with sections of the community; if so, can details be provided.

(16) How many Reserves are expected to be given counter-terrorist training under the Prime Minister’s initiative.

(17) Will additional equipment need to be purchased in order to give the Reserves a counter-terrorist capability; if so, can details be provided of what the costs of any additional equipment will be.

(18) (a) Will the Reserves’ powers need to be expanded in order for them to act in counter-terrorist roles; and (b) is any consideration being given to Reserves (or a Reserves category) being given powers of arrest.

(19) Are any changes to the notice requirement for Reserve service being considered.

1188  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—

(1) (a) How many Reservists have been raised to date under the new categories of service created under the Defence Personnel Regulations 2002; and (b) can a list be provided for each category in the Army, Air Force and Navy.

(2) Have all Reservists been transferred to one of the new categories; if not, when is transfer of all Reservists expected to occur.

(3) Have the training commitment, conditions, call-out obligations or any other aspects of Reserve service changed as a result of the introduction of new categories of service; if not: (a) why were the new categories introduced; and (b) what changes do they effect.

(4) Can a copy be provided of the policy that sets out the training commitment, conditions and call-out obligations for each new category, or alternatively, can a description be provided of each of these aspects for each category.

(5) Have the Service Chiefs decided to raise Reservists in each category.

(6) If any of them have decided not to raise Reservists from a new category, have they indicated why not.

(7) (a) What capability are Standby Reservists assessed as providing to the Australian Defence Force (ADF); and (b) can details be provided of the capability the Government calculates the Standby Reservists specifically to provide, for example, what type of operational capability or counter-terrorist capability etc.

(8) (a) How is an individual Standby Reservist’s capability calculated; and (b) is it ever re-assessed; if so, how often.

(9) Is a Standby Reservist paid anything; if so, how much.

(10) Can a Standby Reservist be called out.

(11) Can an Australian who has never been a member of the ADF apply to join the Standby Reserves; if so, what conditions, if any, must they first satisfy.

(12) With respect to the transition from old to new categories, do existing General Reservists have to undergo any tests before it is determined whether they should be in the Active or Standby Reserves.

(13) Have any persons who, before the commencement of the new Regulations, were classified as inactive Army Reservists transferred to the new Active Reserve category; if so: (a) did they need to undergo any test or suitability procedures; and (b) how many have transferred from inactive to active.

1189  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—

(1) How many suicides of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel, including cadets, have there been in each year since 1995.

(2) Can a breakdown be provided of these annual figures, listing: (a) the age that the person was when they committed suicide; (b) which service they were in; (c) how many years they had served in the ADF; and (d) which bases the deceased were serving at when they committed suicide.

(3) How many claims have been made since 1995 for compensation for the death by suicide of ADF members, including cadets, under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 .

(4) How many such claims have been successful.

(5) In respect of claims under the Act relating to ADF personnel who have committed suicide, what must a claimant establish to be successful.

(6) Is the rate of suicide by ADF members higher at some bases than others.

(7) Has there been any investigation into the reasons for higher suicide rates at some bases than others; if so: (a) when; and (b) what were the findings.

(8) (a) Has the department or the ADF investigated the common reasons for, and circumstances leading to, the suicide of its members; if so, what did any such investigations find; and (b) can copies be provided of any relevant reports.

(9) Has there been any investigation into the reported suicides of three Royal Australian Air Force members at Williamtown in 2002.

(10) What procedure is followed upon the suspected suicide of an ADF member; for instance, is there always an inquiry, are there common terms of reference for all such inquiries, who conducts the inquiry, and to whom do they report.

(11) (a) In what circumstances does a state coronial inquiry happen on the death of an ADF member; and (b) does the ADF ever refer an apparent suicide or death to a coroner.

(12) For each year since 1995, how many coronial inquiries have occurred in relation to the suspected suicide of an ADF member.

(13) (a) Does the ADF have any internal coronial procedures; and (b) in what cases have they been triggered.

(14) (a) How much has been spent by the department to date defending or handling the various administrative actions brought by Ms Susan Campbell on behalf of her deceased daughter, Cadet Sergeant Eleanore Tibble; and (b) can a breakdown be provided of this total sum, listing: (i) the cost of legal advice, including any in-house legal advice, (ii) administrative costs, (iii) salary costs, and (iv) travel costs of the officials involved.

1190  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to the sale and leaseback of the National Storage and Distribution Centre at Moorebank:

(1) When was the decision taken to sell and leaseback the centre.

(2) When was it sold.

(3) Which organisation purchased the property.

(4) What was the sale price for the property.

(5) (a) What rent is being paid by the department for the first year of the lease; and (b) what rent will be paid in the second and subsequent years of the lease.

(6) (a) What is the total value of all building works that have been carried out at the site over the past 5 financial years; and (b) can a full breakdown of these works be provided.

1191  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Finance and Administration—In relation to the sale and leaseback of Russell Offices, Canberra:

(1) Has a property sales consultant been engaged to manage the sale process.

(2) (a) Who is the property sales manager; and (b) what are the terms of the contract with that consultant, including details of remuneration.

(3) Has the sale itself been advertised; if so, how many organisations have expressed an interest in buying the property.

(4) When is it expected that the sale will occur.

(5) Has any thought been given to the future lease or rent arrangements.

(6) What is the status of the consideration of security issues associated with the sale of Russell Offices.

1192  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—

(1) Has the department received any complaints from recruits at the No. 1 Recruit Training Unit at RAAF Base Edinburgh regarding offensive behaviour or harassment by non-commissioned officers; if so, what action has been taken to deal with the complaints and remedy any problems within the unit.

(2) Have there been staff shortages at the unit in the past year; if so: (a) in what areas; and (b) to what extent.

(3) Has the department received any complaints from recruits or other personnel in the unit about unsafe work practices; if so, what action has been taken to ensure that the unit complies with occupational health and safety standards.

1193  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister for Health and Ageing—With reference to the media release of 8 November (reference GTR10/02), which stated that the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) had ‘stopped the clock’ in relation to the applications of Monsanto Australia Ltd (Monsanto) and Bayer Crop Science Australia (Bayer) for the commercial release of genetically-modified canola (the applications):

(1) Which specific sections of the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 or the Gene Technology Act 2000 allow this to occur.

(2) What meetings has the OGTR conducted with the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) in relation to the applications by Monsanto and Bayer.

(3) (a) When were these meetings conducted; (b) what specifically was discussed at each meeting; (c) what was the outcome of each meeting; (d) what records were kept of each meeting; and (e) who attended each meeting.

(4) What meetings has the OGTR conducted with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage or his department in relation to the applications by Monsanto and Bayer.

(5) (a) When were these meetings conducted; (b) what specifically was discussed at each meeting; (c) what was the outcome of each meeting; (d) what records were kept of each meeting; and (e) who attended each meeting.

(6) Can details be provided of actions taken by the OGTR to inform canola growers and regional communities of the progress and implications of the applications, in relation to: (a) the commencement date and duration of each action; (b) the cost of each action; (c) the media used for each action; (d) the method of monitoring the OGTR has used to assess the effectiveness of these actions in advising canola growers and regional communities of the progress and implications of the applications; and (e) the results of monitoring carried out on these actions.

1194  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister for Health and Ageing—With reference to the work done by Acumen Alliance on the introduction of full cost recovery by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR):

(1) (a) How much was Acumen Alliance paid by the Commonwealth to conduct this work; (b) who are the principals of Acumen Alliance; (c) how was Acumen Alliance selected for this work; (d) what other organisations or individuals expressed an interest in performing this work; and (e) can a list be provided of stakeholders consulted by Acumen Alliance as part of the work.

(2) Can a copy be provided of the recommendations made by Acumen Alliance to the OGTR.

(3) Has the Minister received recommendations from the OGTR stemming from the study by Acumen Alliance into the introduction of full cost recovery within the OGTR; if so: (a) on what day did the Minister receive this advice; and (b) when does the Minister expect to finalise her consideration of that advice.

(4) What communications and consultations are planned between the OGTR and stakeholders in implementing the recommendations the OGTR has made to the Minister on the issue of full cost recovery, between the time when all or part of those recommendations are approved by the Minister and 1 July 2003.

(5) To date, how much have the current applications by Monsanto and Bayer for the commercial release of genetically-modified canola cost the OGTR to process.

(6) What is the expected total cost to the OGTR of processing these applications.

(7) To date, what is the quantum of fees and charges which have been levied on each of Monsanto and Bayer by the OGTR in relation to these applications.

(8) What is the expected total of fees and charges that will be levied upon each of Monsanto and Bayer by the OGTR in relation to these applications.

(9) What modelling has been conducted or commissioned by the OGTR on the effect of full cost recovery on the seed price paid by canola growers who may wish in future to purchase seed for genetically-modified canola currently the subject of the applications of Bayer and Monsanto being considered by the OGTR.

(10) Can a summary be provided of the Grains Council of Australia’s opposition to the introduction of full cost recovery within the OGTR.

1195  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade—

(1) Since October 2001, what briefings has the Australian Trade Commission (Austrade) provided to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on the imposition of the ‘snap-back’ provision whereby Japan will impose an increased tariff on imported Australian beef.

(2) Were the briefings written or oral.

(3) In the case of oral briefings: (a) when did these briefings occur; (b) who attended each briefing; and (c) what records were kept of each briefing.

(4) If the advice was written, can a copy be provided.

(5) Since October 2001, what briefings has Austrade provided to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on the imposition of the snap-back.

(6) Were the briefings written or oral.

(7) In the case of oral briefings: (a) when did these briefings occur; (b) who attended each briefing; and (c) what records were kept of each briefing.

(8) If the advice was written, can a copy be provided.

(9) Since October 2001, what advice has Austrade provided to members of the Australian beef industry, beef producer peak bodies or beef exporters in relation to the snap-back.

(10) Was the advice written or oral.

(11) In the case of written advice, can a copy of the advice be provided.

(12) In the case of oral advice: (a) when was the advice given; and (b) was the advice delivered face to face or by telephone or some other means.

(13) In the case of face-to-face advice: (a) who attended each meeting; and (b) what records were kept of each meeting.

(14) In the case of advice delivered by telephone or by some other means: (a) when was this advice given; (b) to whom was this advice given; and (c) what records were kept of each briefing.

(15) Since October 2001, has Austrade met with officials from the United States of America, Canada, or New Zealand with a view to acting in conjunction with these nations in attempting to prevent the imposition by Japan of the snap-back.

(16) (a) When were these meetings conducted; (b) where were these meetings conducted; (c) what was the cost to the Commonwealth of these meetings; (d) what specifically was discussed at each meeting; (e) what was the outcome of each meeting; and (f) what records were kept of each meeting.

(17) Since October 2001, has the Minister met with his counterparts from America, Canada, or New Zealand with a view to acting in conjunction with these nations in attempting to prevent the imposition by Japan of the snap-back.

(18) (a) When were these meetings conducted; (b) where were these meetings conducted; (c) what was the cost to the Commonwealth of these meetings; (d) what specifically was discussed at each meeting; (e) what was the outcome of each meeting; and (f) what records were kept of each meeting.

(19) Since October 2001, has Austrade offered any briefing to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry which was not accepted; if so, what was the reason given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

(20) Since October 2001, has the Minister offered any briefing to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry which was not accepted; if so, what was the reason given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

1196  Senator Bishop: To ask the Minister for Defence—

(1) How many personnel from each of the services were assigned to Operation Blazer in 1991.

(2) (a) Was the purpose of Operation Blazer to go to Iraq to destroy and remove weapons of mass destruction; and (b) why was the operation cancelled.

(3) Was the operation to be under the direction of Mr Richard Butler.

(4) Can the Minister confirm that each member of the operation was vaccinated at least 24 times over a 4-week period against anthrax, typhoid, plague, meningococcal, and tetanus.

(5) What other vaccinations were given.

(6) Was an investigation made into: (a) the supplier of the vaccines; and (b) whether each vaccine was approved for human application, and in combination with other vaccines.

(7) (a) Was the supplier of the anthrax vaccine CAMR, a United Kingdom company; and (b) has this company been closed due to breaches of health regulations.

(8) Do records of the vaccination program exist within the department.

(9) Has any study been done of the health of each member of the operation; if not, why not.

(10) How many of the team are still serving, and what compensation claims have been lodged as a result of their training for the operation.

1197  Senator Bishop: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs—

(1) Were the 20 members of Operation Blazer included in the study of the Health of Gulf War veterans; if not, why not.

(2) (a) How many claims for compensation have been received from members of Operation Blazer; (b) at what level; and (c) for what disabilities.

(3) During the study of the health of Gulf War veterans, was research conducted into the vaccination record of all those included in the sample population, and in the control group.

(4) Has the health study reported on the effect of combined vaccinations within a fixed time frame.

(5) What research has been conducted by the department, separately or in concert with the Department of Defence, into the effect of multiple vaccinations of the kind given to the Operation Blazer team.