

- Title
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
26/05/2014
Estimates
PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS
- Database
Estimates Committees
- Date
26-05-2014
- Source
- Committee Name
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
- Place
- Department
- Page
1
- Status
- Program
- Questioner
- Reference
- Responder
- Sub program
- System Id
committees/estimate/30fa0303-c744-4622-a4c9-192aced1e84f/0001

Previous Fragment Next Fragment
-
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
(Senate-Monday, 26 May 2014)-
PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS
-
Department of the Senate
Senator WONG
Senator SMITH
Senator FAULKNER
Senator RHIANNON
The President
CHAIR
Senator McKENZIE
Mr Hallet
Mr Hallett
Senator KROGER
Senator HEFFERNAN
Dr Laing -
Parliamentary Budget Office
Senator LUNDY
CHAIR
Mr Bowen
Senator SMITH
Senator MOORE -
Department of Parliamentary Services
Ms Greening
Dr Heriot
Senator TILLEM
Senator WONG
PRESIDENT, The
Mr Skill
Senator XENOPHON
Senator FAULKNER
Senator RHIANNON
Senator SMITH
Ms Mills
Senator MADIGAN
CHAIR
Senator McKENZIE
Senator HEFFERNAN
Ms Teece
Ms Hanley
-
Department of the Senate
-
PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET PORTFOLIO
-
COAG Reform Council
Senator McKENZIE
Senator WONG
CHAIR
Mr Frost
Senator Abetz
Ms Cross
Senator SMITH -
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General
Senator DASTYARI
Senator WONG
Mr Fraser
Senator SMITH
Senator FAULKNER
Senator Abetz
CHAIR
Senator McKENZIE
Senator LUNDY -
National Australia Day Council
Mr Watts
Senator LUNDY
Senator XENOPHON
CHAIR
Senator DASTYARI
Mr Lasek
Senator Abetz -
Australian National Audit Office
Mr Boyd
Senator DASTYARI
Senator WONG
Senator XENOPHON
Senator FAULKNER
Senator SMITH
Dr Ioannou
Mr McPhee
CHAIR
Senator McKENZIE
Senator LUNDY -
Australian Public Service Commission
Ms Foster
Mr Livermore
Senator JACINTA COLLINS
Dr Schmidtchen
Senator SMITH
Senator FAULKNER
Senator Abetz
CHAIR
Mr Sedgwick
Senator LUNDY -
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor
Senator JACINTA COLLINS
Senator McKENZIE
CHAIR
Dr McCarthy
Senator FAULKNER
Senator Abetz -
Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman
Senator JACINTA COLLINS
Mr Glenn
Senator McKENZIE
CHAIR
Mr Neave -
Office of National Assessments
Senator JACINTA COLLINS
Mr Harrison
Senator TILLEM
CHAIR
Mr Maude -
Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
Senator JACINTA COLLINS
Mr Blight
Senator XENOPHON
CHAIR
Dr Thom
-
COAG Reform Council
-
PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS
26/05/2014
Estimates
PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS
PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS
In Attendance
Senator the Hon John Hogg, President of the Senate
Department of the Senate:
Dr Rosemary Laing, Clerk of the Senate
Mr Richard Pye, Deputy Clerk of the Senate
Mr Chris Reid, Clerk Assistant (Table)
Ms Maureen Weeks, Clerk Assistant (Procedure)
Mr Brien Hallett, Usher of the Black Rod
Mr Simon Harvey, Director Parliamentary Education Office
Ms Michelle Crowther, Chief Financial Officer
Parliamentary Budget Office
Mr Phil Bowen, Parliamentary Budget Officer
Mr Tim Pyne, First Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer
Mr Colin Brown, First Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer
Mr Paul Gardiner, Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer
Mr Tony McDonald, Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer
Ms Karen Williams, Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer
Mr Gareth Tunks, Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer
Department of Parliamentary Services
Ms Carol Mills, Secretary
Dr Dianne Heriot, Parliamentarian Librarian
Ms Eija Seittenranta, Chief Information Officer
Mr Neil Skill, First Assistant Secretary, Building Management Division
Mr Steve McCauley, Assistant Secretary, ICT Infrastructure Services Branch
Mr Lou Nulley, Assistant Secretary, ICT Strategy, Planning and Applications Branch
Ms Karen Greening, Assistant Secretary, Content Management Branch
Committee met at 0 9.03
CHAIR ( Senator Bernardi ): I declare open this meeting of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. Today the committee will begin its examination of the budget estimates for the parliamentary departments, the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, the Finance portfolio, and cross-portfolio Indigenous matters. The committee may also examine the annual reports of the departments and agencies appearing before it. The committee is due to report to the Senate on 24 June 2014 and has fixed 11 July 2014 as the date for the return of answers to questions taken on notice. The committee's proceedings will begin today with the parliamentary departments and then proceed to the agencies of the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, excluding agencies relating to Indigenous matters, which will be examined on Friday at the cross-portfolio hearing. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will be examined tomorrow.
Under standing order 26, the committee must take all evidence in public session. This includes answers to questions on notice. I remind all witnesses that in giving evidence to the committee they are protected by parliamentary privilege. It is unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to the committee, and such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. It is also contempt to give false or misleading evidence to a committee. The Senate by resolution in 1999 endorsed the following test of relevance of questions at Estimates hearings. Any questions going to the operations or financial positions of the departments and agencies which are seeking funds in the estimates are relevant questions for the purpose of estimates hearings. I remind officers that the Senate has resolved there are no areas in connection with the expenditure of public funds where any person has a discretion to withhold details or explanations from the parliament or its committees, unless the parliament has expressly provided otherwise.
The Senate has resolved also that an officer of a department of the Commonwealth shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy, and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of the officer to superior officers or to a minister. This resolution prohibits only questions asking for opinions on matters of policy and does not preclude questions asking for explanations of policies or factual questions about when and how policies were adopted. I particularly draw the attention of witnesses to an order of the Senate of 13 May 2009 specifying the process by which a claim of public interest immunity should be raised.
The extract read as follows—
Public interest immunity claims
That the Senate—
(a) notes that ministers and officers have continued to refuse to provide information to Senate committees without properly raising claims of public interest immunity as required by past resolutions of the Senate;
(b) reaffirms the principles of past resolutions of the Senate by this order, to provide ministers and officers with guidance as to the proper process for raising public interest immunity claims and to consolidate those past resolutions of the Senate;
(c) orders that the following operate as an order of continuing effect:
(1) If:
(a) a Senate committee, or a senator in the course of proceedings of a committee, requests information or a document from a Commonwealth department or agency; and
(b) an officer of the department or agency to whom the request is directed believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the officer shall state to the committee the ground on which the officer believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, and specify the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document.
(2) If, after receiving the officer’s statement under paragraph (1), the committee or the senator requests the officer to refer the question of the disclosure of the information or document to a responsible minister, the officer shall refer that question to the minister.
(3) If a minister, on a reference by an officer under paragraph (2), concludes that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the minister shall provide to the committee a statement of the ground for that conclusion, specifying the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document.
(4) A minister, in a statement under paragraph (3), shall indicate whether the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee could result only from the publication of the information or document by the committee, or could result, equally or in part, from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee as in camera evidence.
(5) If, after considering a statement by a minister provided under paragraph (3), the committee concludes that the statement does not sufficiently justify the withholding of the information or document from the committee, the committee shall report the matter to the Senate.
(6) A decision by a committee not to report a matter to the Senate under paragraph (5) does not prevent a senator from raising the matter in the Senate in accordance with other procedures of the Senate.
(7) A statement that information or a document is not published, or is confidential, or consists of advice to, or internal deliberations of, government, in the absence of specification of the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document, is not a statement that meets the requirements of paragraph (I) or (4).
(8) If a minister concludes that a statement under paragraph (3) should more appropriately be made by the head of an agency, by reason of the independence of that agency from ministerial direction or control, the minister shall inform the committee of that conclusion and the reason for that conclusion, and shall refer the matter to the head of the agency, who shall then be required to provide a statement in accordance with paragraph (3).
(Extract, Senate Standing Orders, pp 124-125)
Witnesses are specifically reminded that a statement that information or a document is confidential or consists of advice to government is not a statement that meets the requirements of the 2009 order. Instead, witnesses are required to provide some specific indication of the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or the document. Officers are requested to keep opening statements brief or to seek to incorporate longer statements into the Hansard.