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

Notice given 1 October 2010

*157  Senator Joyce: To ask the Minister representing the Treasurer—With reference to the answers  to questions taken on notice during the 2010-11 Budget estimates of the Economics Legislation Committee in relation to the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) under the Treasury portfolio: Given that Table 1 (Values underlying the charts) shows a measure of resource rents, can a full explanation of the derivation of this measure be provided, including the component data series for each of the years shown in the table, comprising total mining sales and service income, operating costs (including depreciation and excluding mining royalties and interest expenses), the allowance for corporate capital and the balance in the RSPT capital account.

*158  Senator Joyce: To ask the Minister representing the Treasurer—With reference to Chart C1-1 (Mineral tax and royalties as a share of mineral profits) taken from Australia’s future tax system , part two, volume 1, p. 226, in which profits are defined as ‘Mineral profits before tax and royalties are measured using income less an allowance for corporate capital’ and mineral profits are reported as equal to just under $50 billion in 2008-09, and to the answers to questions taken on notice during the 2010-11 Budget estimates of the Economics Legislation Committee in relation to the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) under the Treasury portfolio providing data for resource rents, in which these rents are defined as ‘taking into account total mining sales and service income; operating costs (including depreciation and excluding mining royalties and interest expenses) and an allowance for corporate capital’ and are reported as equal to $91.2 billion in 2008-09:

(1) Can an explanation be provided for the differences between the measure of mineral profits and resource rents.

(2) Can a detailed concordance be provided between the $91.2 billion estimate for resource rents in 2008-09 and the approximately $50 billion estimate for mineral profits in 2008-09.

Senator Milne: To ask the Ministers listed below (Question Nos *159-*160)—

(1) (a) How have local communities been informed about the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP); (b) who was informed; and (c) what feedback has been received on the proposed project.

(2) Has there been a land tenure assessment performed on the land to be covered by the project; if so, what was the result of that assessment; if not, why not.

(3) Has there been an attempt to gain the free, prior and informed consent of local Indigenous and forest dependent communities in relation to the project.

(4) (a) Has the Government undertaken any contingency planning for KFCP in the event that it is not possible for country parties to agree on the inclusion of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); and (b) is it anticipated that KFCP will become part of the voluntary carbon market.

(5) (a) Does KFCP propose plantations as reforestation and an alternative source of income for local communities; and (b) is there anything in the design of KFCP that prevents plantations from being recognised for carbon credits.

 

 (6) Given that in its submissions to the UNFCCC in 2008 on KFCP, the Australian Government discussed the need to restrict forest conversion within Central Kalimantan at a province-wide level, can details be provided of: (a) what restrictions are currently in place in relation to forest conversion; and (b) what plans are in place for forest conversion across the province.

*159 Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs

*160 Minister representing the Minister for Trade

*161  Senator Milne: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing—

(1) What is the average cost of a Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) review of medical technology.

(2) What was the annual expenditure on hyperbaric oxygen therapy (Medicare item number 13015) for the following financial years: (a) 2004-05; (b) 2005-06; (c) 2006-07; (d) 2007-08; (e) 2008-09; and (f) 2009-10.

(3) Is it true that the cost of the MSAC review of hyperbaric oxygen therapy exceeds the annual budget of Medicare item number 13015.

(4) Why did the department commission another MSAC review of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (covered by Medicare item number 13015) when MSAC had recommended previously that ‘for the treatment of refractory soft tissue injury resulting from radiotherapy, public funding should be recommended following the failure of conservative therapy’.

(5) What is the annual cost of treatment for chronic wounds, in particular, ulceration.

*162  Senator Milne: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—With reference to the answer given to question on notice CP 02 asked during the 2008-09 Budget estimates hearing of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, which stated in attachment B that, ‘The Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement Industry Development Program (TCFA) consists of three competitive, discretionary grant programs administered by the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry to assist investment in re-tooling the forest industry to assist its adjustment to the change in wood supply resulting from the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement and TCFA’ and noting that this contradicts paragraph 4.43 of the Australian National Audit Office report no. 26 of 2007-08, Tasmanian Forest Industry Development and Assistance Programs: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry , and the department’s own response to this audit report:

(1) How were the programs ‘competitive’, as described in the department’s 2008-09 Budget estimates.

(2) Why was the term ‘competitive’ used to describe the programs when it was explicitly decided by the Advisory Committee that they would not be.

(3) What was the basis of the Advisory Committee’s ‘explicit decision’ to this effect.

(4) Why did the Advisory Committee decide not to prioritise criteria such as adjusting to the changing nature of supply, investing in value adding or protecting existing jobs, when in the 2008-09 Budget estimates statement above, ‘adjusting to the change in wood supply’ is cited as the purpose of the programs.

 

 (5) Why did the Advisory Committee determine not to weight eligibility criteria such as capable business management, contributing to industry competitiveness or commercially viability.

(6) How many businesses allocated grants under the three programs have ceased to be commercially viable.

(7) Could the allocation of grants to such businesses have been avoided if the eligibility criteria cited in (5) above had been weighted.

(8) Why did the administration of these programs differ from departmental best practice guidelines, specifically the ‘Chief Executive Instruction on Grant Management’.