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

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Notice given 26 September 2001

*3908  Senator Hogg: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence—

(1) Did Mr Dangleterre of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company say, on 10 August 2001, at a press conference convened in Brisbane by the Minister, that his company’s helicopter, the Tiger, is ‘under production for 160 unit, 80 for the French Army, 80 for the German Army’.

(2) Has the department been informed of a decision of the French Government to reduce its acquisition of Tiger helicopters from Eurocopter to 37 for the period 2003 to 2008; if so, on what date did the Australian Government receive that information.

(3) If the answers to (1) and (2) are yes, can the Minister explain the apparent discrepancy.

(4) Can the Minister advise: (a) when the French Government intends to receive delivery of its first production helicopter that will form the basis of the Australian production helicopter; (b) when the Australian Government intends to receive delivery of its first production helicopter fully representative of the Commonwealth’s end configuration requirement; and (c) if (b) is to occur before (a), what financial or physical risks will be associated with the delivery of the Australian production aircraft prior to the French production aircraft and whether these risks have been addressed in the negotiation of the A1R87 contract.

(5) Has the department satisfied itself that the German Government plans to acquire the full complement of 80 Tiger helicopters from Eurocopter in the period 2003 to 2008; if so, on what date did the Australian Government come to that view.

(6) Will the Minister advise when the German Government intends to receive its first production helicopter that will form the basis of the Australian production helicopter.

(7) (a) Can the Minister say, or has the department enquired, how many German Tiger helicopters will be delivered to the German Government during the period 2003 to 2008; and (b) if the department has enquired, when did it receive information and what was the nature of that information.

*3909  Senator Hogg: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence—

(1) (a) In respect of the A1R87 tender, did the Under Secretary of the Department of Defence give evidence to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on 4 June 2001 ( Hansard , p. 92) that, ‘the intention is that we will probably negotiate contracts with the two short-listed tenderers before a final selection is made. This means that there will obviously be some to and fro between the short-listed tenderers and us’; and (b) was the same procedure described to Aircraft and Aerospace and reported in its August 2001 issue (p. 14), in these words by Colonel Patch, the Defence Materiel Organisation’s director of Project A1R87: ‘Following the short-listing, the project team will work closely with the two finalists to ensure their respective contracts were the best possible “value for money” packages, before a winner is selected’.

(2) On what date were the Senate, the defence community and the unsuccessful tenderers informed that the procedure described by the Under Secretary and the project director had been dispensed with.

(3) Why was the procedure dispensed with.

(4) Did the Minister state, at a press conference on 10 August 2001, that the successful tenderer ‘was chosen because it was good value for money’.

(5) By what means was the Minister or the department able to determine what was good value for money when all tenderers were given to understand (see (1) above) that that precise issue was only going to be addressed after the short-listing to two alternative contracts had been decided.

(6) By what means was the Minister in a position to determine that a ‘premium’ for interoperability ( Defence White Paper , paragraph 6.35) was not appropriate in the present case, given that the possible size of any such premium could not have been determined at the time of his announcement on 10 August 2001.

*3910  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Does the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics receive any private business sector funds and/or sponsorship and/or payments for the development of its climate change models or climate change economic research projects; if so, can details be provided about the private sector sources of funds.

*3911  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister for the Environment and Heritage—

(1) (a) When did the department last conduct an audit of heritage values in its properties; and (b) can that report be made available.

(2) Does the department have policies, protocols and/or guidelines for the protection of heritage values in its properties; if not, why not.

(3) (a) What is the budget for maintenance and conservation works in the department for the 2001-02 financial year; and (b) how does this compare with each of the previous four financial years.

(4) Which properties has the department sold over the past five years that have heritage values.

(5) Which of these are listed on the Register of the National Estate.

(6) Which of these have state government and local government protection.

(7) What are the department’s policy, protocol and/or guidelines for archiving documents.

(8) (a) Does the department have a collection of artworks and/or artefacts, including documents, of heritage value; (b) are these documented; and (c) is there a budget for acquisition or conservation of such work.

(9) Does the department use the National Culture-Leisure Industry Statistical Framework prepared by the Cultural Ministers’ Council in compiling data; if not, why not.

(10) For those services contracted out, what arrangements, guidelines and requirements are in place to safeguard records for archiving.

(11) (a) What, if any, historical guides and publications on heritage were prepared by the department in the 2000-01 financial year; and (b) what is the budget for this purpose in the 2001-02 financial year.

*3912  Senator Harris: To ask the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts—

(1) Why did the Minister’s office take from 14 June 2000 until 14 November 2000 to initially respond to a freedom of information (FOI) request by Kenneth Ivory, in relation to ‘Casualties of Telstra’ (COT) related matters.

(2) What action is the Minister going to take to rectify the fact that the department’s delay has, whether intentionally or inadvertently, resulted in Mr Ivory not having FOI documents and not being in a position to present his case in January 2001 to the Supreme Court of Queensland.

(3) Is the Minister aware that this FOI delay potentially had the same effect as in the five COT cases listed in Schedule A and Schedule B of the Senate working paper of 1997, whose matters also related to breaches of FOI by Telstra.

(4) What action will the Minister take to have Telstra, or the relevant department, settle Mr Ivory’s damages immediately.

(5) Why were Mr Ivory’s (Solar-Mesh) COT-related matters not settled prior to the Telstra ‘T2’ float, under the same terms and conditions as the five COT cases listed in Schedule A of the Senate committee’s working paper of 1997.

(6) Will Mr Ivory’s damages claim immediately be resolved, under no less than the same terms and conditions as the five resolved COT cases listed in Schedule A that were settled just before the T2 float; if not, why not.

(7) (a) How many people with COT-related issues has Telstra had arrested, or attempted to have arrested, under a mental health warrant, peace and good behaviour warrant or criminal warrant.

(8) Was the purpose of that action to assist Telstra to assassinate the character of the COTs and to conceal the truth about systemic faults, to comply with Freehill, Hollingdale and Page’s ‘COT case strategy’, dated 10 September 1993.

(9) How many of these COT-related matters have already been settled.

(10) Against how many people with COT-related issues has Telstra and/or its lawyers prevailed on federal or state police to falsify police records to assassinate those people’s character and reputation to assist in concealing the truth about Telstra’s defective network, by use of corporate thuggery and neglect of duty of care.

(11) Were any Telstra employees (and/or their agents) involved in having police records and/or mental health reports falsified to cause injury to COT-related people; if so, who were they.

(12) What are the names of the police officers, medical practitioners, or others (and/or their agents) involved in having COTs defamed, intimidated, harassed or wrongfully arrested and who have been obtaining either mental health warrants, bogus psychiatric reports or bogus psychologists assessments made, based solely on information from Telstra or its agents, or who were involved in apprehension warrants being wrongfully obtained against COTs.

(13) (a) Were any persons from within or associated with the Minister’s office involved in the actions described in (12); if so, who were they; and (b) were any of these warrants ever condoned by the Minister.

(14) Were any Telstra employees (and/or their agents) involved in wrongfully obtaining warrants; if so, who were they.

(15) Did Telstra’s former chairman, Mr David Hoare, have any conflict of interest.

(16) What other directorships has Mr David Hoare held from 1990 to date.

(17) Did any conflict of interest occur when Mr Stephen Mead, while seconded from Mallesons Stephen Jacques to Telstra, became in January 1996 a partner in Mallesons Stephen Jacques, while remaining on secondment to Telstra.

(18) On what specific date did Mr Stephen Mead cease being a seconded employee of Telstra.

(19) Is there any outstanding Telstra documentation that has not been provided under FOI and discovery processes; if so: (a) why has there been a delay in providing that information; and (b) when can Mr Ivory expect to receive that outstanding information, whether professional legal privilege has previously been claimed or not.

(20) Are there any outstanding documents under FOI and non-party disclosure in the Minister’s offices; if so, when can Mr Ivory expect to receive this outstanding information, whether professional legal privilege has been previously claimed or not.

(21) Did Telstra employee, Mr Armstrong, attempt to have Mr Ivory sign a Telstra deed of settlement in January or February 2001, to walk away from his claims against Telstra and Mr Mead.

(22) Was the Minister aware that Telstra was attempting to have Mr Ivory commit illegal and unauthorised acts had he signed the settlement deed.

(23) Has the Minister condoned unconscionable conduct by Telstra’s authorised officer in his attempt to silence Mr Ivory’s claims while Mr Ivory was unrepresented.

(24) Why did Telstra refuse to pay for Mr Ivory to seek independent legal representation to advise Mr Ivory of Telstra’s proposed settlement deed terms that Telstra tried to force Mr Ivory into signing without time or money to seek advice before Telstra withdrew the settlement offer.

(25) What action will be taken under administrative law to prevent such mismanagement of Telstra continuing to unjustly sabotage Mr Ivory’s life and livelihood.

(26) (a) Why did Telstra take from 11 May 1994 until 1 June 1994 to test Mr Ivory’s 1800 prefix complaint.

(27) (a) Is it Telstra’s policy that, when any line/number fault is reported it is logged into Telstra’s fault reporting system; (b) is it correct that a standard set of remote tests are immediately conducted in the first instance; and (c) if the fault cannot be rectified or found remotely, is a field technician dispatched to attend the premises; if so, why was this process not followed with Mr Ivory’s 1800 fault complaint.

(28) Why did Telstra only test the 1800 fault reported by Mr Ivory after the fault had been rectified at the exchange on the 31 May 1994.

(29) Did Telstra fabricate and falsify its records and documentation to conceal the 1800 prefix systemic fault.

(30) How many 1800 subscribers did Telstra have in September 1993.

(31) Why has Telstra withheld ‘as obviously irrelevant’ information consistent with the possibility of proving innocence.