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


Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Notice given 1 October 2003

*1872  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the Structural Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) When did the Minister announce the package.

(2) What funding was committed to the package.

(3) What grant monies have been paid under the package.

(4) When were program guidelines and applications forms made publicly available.

(5) When did the application period commence.

(6) When did the application period close.

*1873  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $247 500 for the Kaygee’s manufacturing facility project under the Structural Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments, what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date. 

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee;

(c) was the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the variation/s;

(d) when did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business activity;

(l) with reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iv) what employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the proponent;

(p) what date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones; if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(s) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook the feasibility study;

(w) did the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised; if so, what projects;

(z) did the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i) what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided letters of support;

(ab) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(ac) was a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent describe the likely impact; and

(af) did the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment, including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10)  In relation to the progress of the project:

(a)  when did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(c) what project planning and design time was required;

(d) if applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when did project operations commence;

(f) when did the project become fully operational;

(g) were progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so: (i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones, and (ii)  have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i) what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering committee established; 

(i) (i) what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting requirements been met;

(j) (i) what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(o) what financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws; and

(q) what impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding or other sources;

(c) has the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated by the project; and

(f) has an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit, (ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

*1874  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $450 000 for the Chrome Engineering Expansion project under the Structural Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments, what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date. 

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee;

(c) was the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the variation/s;

(d) when did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business activity;

(l) with reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iv) what employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the proponent;

(p) what date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones; if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(s) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook the feasibility study;

(w) did the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised; if so, what projects;

(z) did the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i) what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided letters of support;

(ab) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(ac) was a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent describe the likely impact; and

(af) did the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment, including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10)  In relation to the progress of the project:

(a)  when did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(c) what project planning and design time was required;

(d) if applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when did project operations commence;

(f) when did the project become fully operational;

(g) were progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so: (i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones, and (ii)  have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i) what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering committee established; 

(i) (i) what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting requirements been met;

(j) (i) what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(o) what financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws; and

(q) what impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding or other sources;

(c) has the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated by the project; and

(f) has an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit, (ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

*1875  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $100 000 for the Gin Gin Bakery project under the Structural Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments, what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date.

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee;

(c) was the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the variation/s;

(d) when did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business activity;

(l) with reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iv) what employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the proponent;

(p) what date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones; if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(s) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook the feasibility study;

(w) did the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised; if so, what projects;

(z) did the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i) what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided letters of support;

(ab) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(ac) was a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent describe the likely impact; and

(af) did the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment, including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10)  In relation to the progress of the project:

(a)  when did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(c) what project planning and design time was required;

(d) if applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when did project operations commence;

(f) when did the project become fully operational;

(g) were progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so: (i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones, and (ii)  have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i) what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering committee established; 

(i) (i) what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting requirements been met;

(j) (i) what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(o) what financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws; and

(q) what impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding or other sources;

(c) has the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated by the project; and

(f) has an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit, (ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

*1876  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $115 000 for the Cadastral Survey Data Management project under the Structural Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments, what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date. 

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee;

(c) was the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the variation/s;

(d) when did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business activity;

(l) with reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iv) what employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the proponent;

(p) what date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones; if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(s) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook the feasibility study;

(w) did the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised; if so, what projects;

(z) did the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i) what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided letters of support;

(ab) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(ac) was a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent describe the likely impact; and

(af) did the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment, including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10)  In relation to the progress of the project:

(a)  when did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(c) what project planning and design time was required;

(d) if applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when did project operations commence;

(f) when did the project become fully operational;

(g) were progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so: (i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones, and (ii)  have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i) what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering committee established; 

(i) (i) what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting requirements been met;

(j) (i) what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(o) what financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws; and

(q) what impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding or other sources;

(c) has the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated by the project; and

(f) has an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit, (ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

*1877  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $93 500 for the Fraser Coast Packhouse project under the Structural Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments, what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date. 

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee;

(c) was the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the variation/s;

(d) when did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business activity;

(l) with reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iv) what employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the proponent;

(p) what date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones; if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(s) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook the feasibility study;

(w) did the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised; if so, what projects;

(z) did the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i) what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided letters of support;

(ab) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(ac) was a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent describe the likely impact; and

(af) did the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment, including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10)  In relation to the progress of the project:

(a)  when did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(c) what project planning and design time was required;

(d) if applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when did project operations commence;

(f) when did the project become fully operational;

(g) were progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so: (i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones, and (ii)  have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i) what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering committee established; 

(i) (i) what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting requirements been met;

(j) (i) what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(o) what financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws; and

(q) what impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding or other sources;

(c) has the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated by the project; and

(f) has an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit, (ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

*1878  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $550 000 for the Hervey Bay Organic Processing Plant project under the Structural Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments, what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date. 

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee;

(c) was the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the variation/s;

(d) when did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business activity;

(l) with reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iv) what employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the proponent;

(p) what date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones; if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(s) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook the feasibility study;

(w) did the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised; if so, what projects;

(z) did the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i) what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided letters of support;

(ab) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(ac) was a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent describe the likely impact;

(af) did the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment, including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation; and

(ag) (i) what exceptional characteristics did the project proposal possess, and (ii) what significant and/or widespread impact on employment did the application suggest would result from the realisation of the project. 

(10)  In relation to the progress of the project:

(a)  when did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(c) what project planning and design time was required;

(d) if applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when did project operations commence;

(f) when did the project become fully operational;

(g) were progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so: (i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones, and (ii)  have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i) what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering committee established; 

(i) (i) what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting requirements been met;

(j) (i) what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(o) what financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws;

(q) what impact has the project had on other businesses in the region; and

(r) has the project had a significant and/or widespread impact on employment in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding or other sources;

(c) has the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated by the project; and

(f) has an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit, (ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

*1879  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $70 000 for the MacLennon Nominees Production of Citrus for Coles Supermarkets project under the Structural Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments, what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date. 

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee;

(c) was the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the variation/s;

(d) when did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business activity;

(l) with reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iv) what employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the proponent;

(p) what date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones; if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(s) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook the feasibility study;

(w) did the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised; if so, what projects;

(z) did the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i) what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided letters of support;

(ab) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(ac) was a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent describe the likely impact; and

(af) did the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment, including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10)  In relation to the progress of the project:

(a)  when did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(c) what project planning and design time was required;

(d) if applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when did project operations commence;

(f) when did the project become fully operational;

(g) were progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so: (i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones, and (ii)  have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i) what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering committee established; 

(i) (i) what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting requirements been met;

(j) (i) what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(o) what financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws; and

(q) what impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding or other sources;

(c) has the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated by the project; and

(f) has an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit, (ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

*1880  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $250 000 for the Abbotsleigh Citrus Stage Two project under the Structural Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments, what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date. 

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee;

(c) was the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the variation/s;

(d) when did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business activity;

(l) with reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iv) what employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the proponent;

(p) what date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones; if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(s) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook the feasibility study;

(w) did the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised; if so, what projects;

(z) did the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i) what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided letters of support;

(ab) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(ac) was a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent describe the likely impact; and

(af) did the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment, including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10)  In relation to the progress of the project:

(a)  when did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(c) what project planning and design time was required;

(d) if applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when did project operations commence;

(f) when did the project become fully operational;

(g) were progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so: (i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones, and (ii)  have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i) what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering committee established; 

(i) (i) what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting requirements been met;

(j) (i) what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(o) what financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws; and

(q) what impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding or other sources;

(c) has the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated by the project; and

(f) has an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit, (ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

*1881  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $250 000 for the Kingaroy and South Burnett Community Private Hospital project under the Structural Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments, what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date. 

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee;

(c) was the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the variation/s;

(d) when did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business activity;

(l) with reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project,

(iv) what employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the proponent;

(p) what date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones; if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(s) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook the feasibility study;

(w) did the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised; if so, what projects;

(z) did the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i) what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided letters of support;

(ab) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(ac) was a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent describe the likely impact; and

(af) did the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment, including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10)  In relation to the progress of the project:

(a)  when did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(c) what project planning and design time was required;

(d) if applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when did project operations commence;

(f) when did the project become fully operational;

(g) were progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so: (i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones, and (ii)  have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i) what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering committee established; 

(i) (i) what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting requirements been met;

(j) (i) what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds, have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government funding;

(o) what financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws; and

(q) what impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding or other sources;

(c) has the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated by the project; and

(f) has an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit, (ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

*1882  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—

(1) When did Australia first accepted imports of snow peas and sugar snap peas.

(2) For each of the past 5 financial years, from which countries and in what quantity has Australia imported snow peas and sugar snap peas.

(3) In relation to each country from which Australia currently accepts imports of snow peas and sugar snap peas, what chemical residues are currently tested on these imports.

(4) In relation to each country from which Australia imports snow peas and sugar snap peas: (a) which nations test for chemical residues; (b) which agencies or companies perform these chemical residue tests; (c) what quantity of snow peas and sugar snap peas make up each sample taken for the chemical residue test; and (d) what is the rate at which samples are taken and tested for chemical residues, for example, is one sample taken for each tonne of snow peas and sugar snap peas, or for each half tonne, or for each container load.

(5) Where chemical residue testing on snow peas and sugar snap peas bound for Australia is conducted in different nations or by agencies other than Australian Government agencies, what audit processes are undertaken by the Commonwealth to ensure the veracity of the testing conducted in these nations or by agencies other than Australian Government agencies.

(6) Can details be provided of any instances in the past 5 financial years where chemical residue testing of snow peas and sugar snap peas bound for Australia has been found by the Commonwealth to be inadequate.

(7) What penalties or sanctions have been applied to the supplying nation, shipping operator, trader or agency in cases where chemical residue testing of snow peas and sugar snap peas bound for Australia has been found by the Commonwealth to be inadequate.

(8) In relation to each country from which Australia has imported snow peas and sugar snap peas: On how many occasions have snow peas and sugar snap peas bound for import to Australia been rejected on the basis that chemical residue testing has detected unacceptable levels of chemical residues, and, in each case: (a) which chemical was involved; (b) what was the concentration of the chemical; and (c) what is the concentration of each chemical approved by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.

*1883  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—

(1) When did the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) or its predecessor, the National Registration Authority, receive an application for the use of glufosinate ammonium as a broad acre herbicide in Australia.

(2) Who was the applicant.

(3) When was the final decision made by APVMA regarding the use of glufosinate ammonium as a broad acre herbicide in Australia and can a copy of the approval notice or permit be provided, including all details of conditions of use; if not, why not.

(4) To date, how much has the current application for the use of glufosinate ammonium as a broad acre herbicide in Australia cost the APVMA to process.

(5) What is the expected total cost to the APVMA of processing the application.

(6) To date, what is the quantum of fees and charges which have been levied upon the applicant in relation to the application.

(7) What is the expected total of fees and charges that will be levied upon the applicant in relation to the application.

*1884  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—

(1) When did the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) or its predecessor, the National Registration Authority, receive an application for the use of the herbicide known as Roundup as a broad acre herbicide in Australia.

(2) Who was the applicant.

(3) When is a final decision expected from the APVMA for the use of Roundup as a broad acre herbicide in Australia.

(4) To date, how much has the current application for the use of Roundup as a broad acre herbicide in Australia cost the APVMA to process.

(5) What is the expected total cost to the APVMA of processing the application.

(6) To date, what is the quantum of fees and charges which have been levied upon the applicant in relation to the application.

(7) What is the expected total of fees and charges that will be levied upon the applicant in relation to the application.

*1885  Senator Bishop: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs—With reference to the Homecare program:

(1) For the period 1 January to 30 June 2003: How many assessments, by region, were: (a) made; (b) reviewed up; (c) reviewed down; and (d) deferred pending funding availability.

(2) Of those assessed but deferred pending availability of funds: How many, by region, have since been admitted after 1 July 2003.

(3) Of the additional $8.6 million added to the program for the 2003-04 financial year: (a) for each item, how much has been consumed by cost increases; and (b) how much remains available for increased numbers of clients in the program.

(4) What cost increases have occurred since 1 July 2003.

*1886  Senator Bishop: To ask the Minister for Justice and Customs—

(1) What is the current public relations budget for the Australian Customs Service.

(2) How many: (a) journalists; and (b) other staff, are employed.

(3) How many regular publications are printed.

(4) What is the size of each distribution list.

(5) How much was spent on postage in the 2002-03 financial year.

(6) How many media releases did the Minister issue in each of the past 24 months.

(7) What sum was spent on film media products in each of the following financial years:  (a) 2002-03; and (b) 2003-04.

(8) How many journalists are employed under contract.

(9) How much has been spent in 2003 on transport charters.

(10) How much has been spent in 2003 for services to external media agencies.

(11) How much has been spent on the Viarsa media campaign.

*1887  Senator Bishop: To ask the Minister for Justice and Customs—

(1) What is the estimated cost of the charter of the Southern Supporter .

(2) Who owns the vessel; and (b) what is the term of the charter.

(3) In the recent pursuit of the Viarsa, when did the Southern Supporter first come within sight of the Viarsa .

(4) What attempts did the crew of the Southern Supporter make to board the Viarsa .

(5) On how many occasions and on which days of the chase was the Viarsa ordered to heave to or change direction.

(6) (a) What arms are carried on board the Southern Supporter ; and (b) were they deployed for use during the chase.

(7) What assistance was sought and given by the Governments of France, South Africa and Great Britain in apprehending the Viarsa .

(8) Will the Australian Government be asked to reimburse those governments for assisting the Southern Supporter ; if so, what sum is estimated for each.

(9) (a) What is the estimated cost of sending Royal Australian Naval personnel to sail the Viarsa back to Australia; and (b) how will that cost be funded.

(10) Is any consideration being given to installing heavy armament on the Southern Supporter to facilitate its interception power; if not, why not.

*2176  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing—With reference to the report, The Health and Welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, which identified poorer living conditions and health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians than for non-Indigenous Australians, can specific details be provided of current or planned programs, including details of budgets and targets for populations reached and outcome improvements in respect of the following problems identified in the report:

(a) over a quarter of the communities with a population of 50 or more that were not connected to the town water supply had failed water quality tests at least once during the previous 12 months;

(b) a fifth of the communities had water supplies that had not been tested in the past 12 months;

(c) more than one in three communities with 50 people or more experienced water restrictions in the past 12 months;

(d) just under half of the communities with a population of 50 or more reported that sewerage system overflows or leakages had occurred in the past 12 months;

(e) ponding of stagnant water occurred in 42 per cent of the communities with a population of more than 50;

(f) Indigenous adults were about half as likely as non-Indigenous adults to be employed in health-related occupations;

(g) Indigenous separation rates were higher than non-Indigenous rates for all age groups except those aged 75 years and over, with the highest rate differences being for both males and females in the age groups between 35 and 64 years;

(h) principal diagnoses for which high incidence ratios were evident in the 2000-01 financial year were: (i) care involving dialysis (6.6:1 for males, 12.6:1 for females), (ii) endrocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases (3.5:1 for males, 3.8:1 for females), and (iii) diseases of the respiratory system (2.6:1 for males, 3.1:1 for females);

(i) babies of Indigenous mothers were twice as likely to be of low birthweight (13 per cent of births) than babies of non-Indigenous mothers (6 per cent);

(j) the perinatal death rate for births to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mothers was 20 per thousand live births and stillbirths, compared with 10 per thousand for non-Indigenous mothers;

(k) reports of long-term health conditions increased with age from 34 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged under 5 years to 99 per cent of Indigenous Australians aged 55 years and over;

(l) eye/vision problems were the most commonly reported conditions (29 per cent), followed by asthma (16 per cent), back problems (15 per cent) and ear/hearing problems (15 per cent);

(m) the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System reports disease rates for Indigenous Australians are many times those among non-Indigenous Australians with incidence ratios particularly high for: (i) gonococcal infection (69:1), (ii) syphilis (42:1), and (iii) chlamydia (18:1); and for most other communicable diseases reported to the surveillance system, the incidence rates for Indigenous persons are generally in the range 5 to 10 times higher than for non-Indigenous persons;

(n) incidence ratios for: (i) ischaemic heart disease hospitalisations are 1.4:1 for males and 2.4:1 for females, (ii) respiratory diseases, 2.6:1 for males and 3.1:1 for females, (iii) infectious and parasitic diseases, 2.7:1 for males and 3.1:1 for females, and (iv) injury and poisoning, 1.9:1 for males and 2.3:1 for females;

(o) among the latter group (injury and poisons), hospitalisations that are attributed to ‘assault’ are 8 times higher for Indigenous males and 28 times higher for Indigenous females, compared with non-Indigenous males and females respectively;

(p) Indigenous children living in non-remote areas were less likely than non-Indigenous children to have been breastfed for more than 6 months;

(q) higher proportions of Indigenous Australians in non-remote areas reported medium to high vegetable intake (two or more serves per day) but more non-Indigenous Australians reported medium to high fruit intake;

(r) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were more likely to consume whole (full cream) milk rather than reduced fat alternatives and to add salt to meals after cooking;

(s) the percentage of Indigenous adults classified as overweight or obese was 61 per cent, compared with 48 per cent of non-Indigenous adults;

(t) Indigenous persons aged 18 years and over were twice as likely as non-Indigenous persons to be current smokers (51 per cent compared with 24 per cent); with higher rates applying to both sexes and across all age groups; and

(u) Indigenous adults aged 18 years and over were less likely (42 per cent) than non-Indigenous adults (62 per cent) to have consumed alcohol in the week prior to interview for the 2001 National Health Survey; however, those who consumed alcohol were more likely to have consumed at risky/high levels than non-Indigenous consumers (29 per cent compared with 17 per cent).

*2177  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing—With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1643 (Senate Hansard , 8 September 2003, p. 14018);

(1) Given that there is an apparent discrepancy in the Australian Grand Prix Corporation’s (AGPC) claim of 55 billion television viewers of the Formula 1 series, (350 million viewers per race, multiplied by 17, the number of races, equals 5.9 billion, not 55 billion), and given that the figure of 350 million per race also cannot be proved, is the Minister satisfied that the Formula 1 Grand Prix is an event of international significance; if so, why. 

(2) Given that according to the AGPC, spending by additional overseas visitors attracted by the Formula 1 Grand Prix equates to $15.3 million; that this spending equates to about $3 million in actual profit (assuming normal commercial margins); and that the operating loss of the event is now $10 to 12 million, a major factor being the race licence fee (believed to be $20-25 million, exported in US dollars): does the Minister consider that losing the event would cause economic hardship to Australia; if so, why.

(3) Given that the grounds on which the AGPC applied for an exemption from the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 appear to be incorrect, will the Minister give consideration to cancelling the exemption for the 2004 race; if not, why not.

(4) In light of the Government’s recently-stated intention to sign the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: (a) can the Government confirm that this includes a commitment not to permit the export of tobacco advertising; and (b) does this mean that the Australian Grand Prix, because it is broadcast worldwide, will not receive an exemption from the requirements of the Tobacco Advertising Act for 2004 and beyond; if not, why not.