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


Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Notice given 23 October 2003

2319  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing—With reference to the article, ‘Chemical warfare at work’ published at pages 30 to 35 in New Scientist (June 1997):

(1) Does the Government agree that fragrances pose a threat to the health of those who are sensitive to chemicals.

(2) Does the Government intend to: (a) assess and regulate the chemicals used in fragrances for their effects on such people; (b) ban the use of fragranced products in health care facilities; and (c) otherwise discourage the use of fragranced products.

2320  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister for Defence—

(1) Can the Minister confirm the press report that quoted the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence as saying that the Point Nepean Community Group and FKP Limited Consortium (the consortium) has won the bid for the 40 year lease of Defence land at Point Nepean.

(2) Will there be an opportunity for public input into the bid before the lease is signed; if not, why not.

(3) Given that, in the week beginning 19 October 2003, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence was reported as saying that the tourist accommodation would not be a ‘five star, high rise cliff-top hotel’:  Will the tourist accommodation be: (a) five, four, three or other star; (b) one, two, three, four, five or more storeys high; and (c) on a cliff-top.

(4) How many beds will there be in the proposed tourist accommodation.

(5) What planning mechanism or process will the Government have in place to ensure that the development proposals in the bid that are accepted are not subsequently changed, expanded and/or intensified in the future.

(6) Has the Government advised the consortium that, according to legal advice, state planning laws will prevail on the site.

(7) What legal advice has the Government sought on the implications of the lease being signed for a development that will not be permitted by state planning laws.

(8) What talks and correspondence has the Government conducted with the Victorian State Government with regard to bid proposals and whether or not these will be permitted under state planning laws.

(9) What ‘final details’ need to be finalised before the lease is signed.

(10) On what date will the lease be signed.

(11) Does the consortium’s bid include development on the beach or foreshore; if so, what development is proposed.

(12) In what sense will there be public ownership of the site.

(13) Did the Victorian State Government offer any money in its bid for the site; if so, how much was offered.

(14) (a) Who will be appointed to the ‘community panel’ set up to advise on the management of the site; and (b) what is the process by which the panel will be chosen and funded.

(15) How will the limitation of ‘search and rescue’ activities only for the proposed helipad be guaranteed.

(16) What checks has the Government conducted on FKP Limited.

(17) Is the Government aware that FKP Limited’s construction division was fined recently by the Maroondah City Council for illegally felling trees and failing to protect existing vegetation at a retirement village construction site in Croydon, Victoria and that it failed to submit a landscape plan.

2321  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—In relation to the flyover by F-111 aircraft in Canberra on 11 October 2003, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the High Court of Australia:

(1) When was it was first announced that the flyover would take place.

(2) Which organisations and/or individuals were consulted about the decision to conduct the flyover.

(3) Who authorised the decision to conduct the flyover.

(4) How many planes were involved.

(5) What was the home base of the aircraft involved.

(6) What was the total cost.

2322  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—In relation to Australian Defence Force (ADF) support for the visit by the President of the United States of America George W Bush on 23 October 2003:

(1) For each ADF unit and platform that was involved, either directly or by being placed on stand-by, can the following information be provided: (a) the name of the unit or platform; (b) its home base; and (c) the cost of providing the support.

(2) (a) Where did the request for the ADF to provide this level of support originate; and (b) did the United States request such a high level of involvement of ADF assets.

(3) (a) Who authorised this level of ADF participation; and (b) if it was authorised within Defence, by whom was it authorised.

(4) (a) What were the rules of engagement for the ADF personnel and platforms involved; and (b) can a copy of the rules of engagement be provided.

2323  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to the decision to abandon the sale of the remaining 90 hectares of Defence land at Point Nepean:

(1) When and on what basis was this decision taken.

(2) (a) Who made this decision; and (b) if the decision was taken within Defence, by whom.

(3) Did Defence consult with the Victorian Government or relevant local council about this decision; if not, why not; if so, what was the nature of this consultation.

(4) How many and which organisations and individuals had submitted bids to buy the 90 hectares of land.

(5) What was the range of bids for the land.

(6) (a) Have any of the organisations or individuals that submitted bids approached the Commonwealth seeking any form of compensation for costs incurred as a result of the Commonwealth’s decision to abandon the sale process; and (b) is this expected to occur in the future.

(7) (a) Has the Commonwealth offered any of the organisations or individuals that submitted bids any form of compensation for costs incurred; and (b) is this expected to occur in the future.

(8) Has the Commonwealth received any legal advice about whether it would be open to any of the bidders to claim compensation; if so, can a copy of this advice be provided.

2324  Senator Evans: To ask the Minister for Defence—With reference to the announcement of the Point Nepean Community Group and FKP Limited Consortium (the consortium) as the preferred tenderer for the 90 hectare portion of the Defence land at Point Nepean:

(1) How many organisations and individuals responded to the request for tender issued by the Commonwealth.

(2) Can a list be provided of the names of these individuals and organisations that responded.

(3) In to what range did bids from the unsuccessful tenderers fall.

(4) How much was the winning bid.

(5) Has the Point Nepean site been valued by the Victorian Valuer-General, the Australian Valuation Office, or any private valuer at any time in the past 5 years; if so, when and what was the estimated value.

(6) On what basis was the consortium announced as the preferred tenderer.

(7) (a) Who made this decision; and (b) if this decision was taken within Defence, by whom.

(8) Was there any consultation with the Victorian State Government or the local council regarding this decision; if not, why not; if so, what was the nature of this consultation.

(9) What are the main terms of the lease for the Point Nepean land, for example, length of lease, any options, rent or lease conditions.

(10) When will negotiations with the preferred tenderer for the Point Nepean land be finalised.

(11) How does the preferred tenderer plan to use the site.

(12) (a) Is the site subject to Victorian environmental and planning laws; and (b) has Defence received any legal advice in relation to this issue; if so, can a copy of this advice be provided.