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

Notice given 29 September 2010

151  Senator Abetz: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—

(1) (a) Can an itemised list be provided of how much the department has spent on hospitality since 24 November 2007; and (b) of this, how much was spent on alcohol.

(2) For each Minister and any associated parliamentary secretary: (a) can an itemised list be provided of how much each office has spent on hospitality since 24 November 2007; and (b) of this, how much was spent on alcohol.

153  Senator Abetz: To ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister—Did the Prime Minister dine with representatives from the superannuation industry at the Lodge on Monday, 24 May 2010; if so: (a) can a list be provided of all attendees; (b) on what basis were individuals invited to the dinner; (c) who compiled the invitation list; and (d) what was the total cost of the dinner.

155  Senator Abetz: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing—With reference to hyperbaric oxygen treatment and the Government’s Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC):

(1) Has the number of Medicare claims on hyperbaric oxygen treatment been stable over the past decade.

(2) Can the number of services provided over the past decade be provided on a yearly basis, by either calendar or financial year.

(3) Given that MSAC has conducted a number of reviews into hyperbaric oxygen treatment: (a) how much has each of these reviews cost; and (b) what is the anticipated cost of the latest review.

(4) Given that the validity of this treatment seems to be acknowledged through worldwide medical literature: (a) what are the technical medical issues that require MSAC to further investigate this treatment; and (b) on what basis did MSAC review the existing technology in relation to this treatment.

(5) Given that it is understood that MSAC’s brief is to review new technologies not existing funded technology, are there any other examples where MSAC has reviewed existing funded technologies; if not, why has hyperbaric oxygen treatment been singled out.

156  Senator Abetz: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation—

(1) When was the AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report first forwarded by the Melbourne office of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to its Canberra office.

 

 (2) When, and at which office, did the ACCC receive: (a) the AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report; (b) the first HRL Technology report; and (c) the second HRL Technology report.

(3) When did the ACCC decide not to pursue the matter.

(4) When was this decision communicated to Mr Groombridge.

(5) What was the reason for the ACCC not wanting to make these reports available to Mr Groombridge.

(6) When were each of the AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report and the first and second HRL Technology reports received by the: (a) Melbourne office; and (b) the Canberra office, of the ACCC.

(7) Did the ACCC receive a response to its letter to the Giant Bicycle Company, dated 29 November 2005; if so, when was this received.

(8) (a) Why was ‘seriousness’ expressed in this letter; and (b) why was this not expressed in the ACCC’s letter to the Parliamentary Secretary, dated 13 December 2005.

(9) With reference to the AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report: (a) who commissioned it; (b) when was it commissioned; and (c) for what purpose was it commissioned.

(10) Did the ACCC ever advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman of the existence of the ACCC’s letter to the Parliamentary Secretary, dated 13 December 2005; if so: (a) by whom; and (b) when.

(11) Was  the Commonwealth Ombudsman advised of the existence of the ACCC’s letter to the Giant Bicycle Company, dated 22 December 2005, advising that no further action would be taken.

(12) Did the ACCC assert to the Commonwealth Ombudsman that the particular part of the bicycle in question had been examined by two bicycle specialists; if so: (a) on what basis was this claim made; and (b) what was the expertise of these specialists that allowed the ACCC to describe them as such.

(13) Were the two tests referred to above undertaken by the Giant Bicycle Company’s agents; if so, on what basis is it asserted that the tests were independent.

(14) Does the ACCC have a copy of these assessments in written form.

(15) Does the ACCC believe that Mr Groombridge received a copy of these assessments; if so, why and when did the ACCC come to that belief.

(16) Did the ACCC ever receive a copy of a letter from Mr Groombridge requesting a signed copy of both or either of these assessments.

(17) Did the ACCC receive a formal report from Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading in Tasmania; if so, when was it received.

(18) What expertise exists in the ACCC  to counter the HRL Technology report.

(19) With reference to the correspondence sent to the ACCC by Mr Groombridge, dated 4 August 2009, enclosing a copy of his report, and in relation to the statements in his report alleged by the ACCC to be false and/or misleading, does the ACCC acknowledge that: (a) the same statements appear in ACCC correspondence; and (b) those statements appearing in ACCC correspondence are false and/or misleading; if not, what evidence can the ACCC provide to refute the allegations.