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

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Notice given 9 August 2012

2002  Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs—

(1) Will the Government honour the verbal undertakings that facilitated United Nations (UN) member states agreement by consensus to the ‘Cocos’ association with Australia’, the outcome of the UN supervised act of self-determination.

(2) What standing in international law does the Government accord to verbal undertakings made by ambassadors and permanent representatives at the UN when those undertakings produce results sought in Australia’s national interest.

2003  Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence—

(1) Is the department considering the Defence Force Posture Review suggestion that the Cocos Islands airfield be upgraded to support the new P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft likely to be acquired by the Royal Australian Air Force.


 (2) Are talks underway at an official level regarding military use by the United States of America (US) of the Cocos Islands; is so: (a) what are the dates and location of such talks; and (b) at what level are the attendees.

(3) Does the scope of discussion with the US include the stationing and training of US personnel, drones, surveillance planes and ships through the Cocos Islands.

(4) When spokespersons for the Minister indicate that the Cocos Islands is a longer-term option for closer Australian-US engagement, what time frame is considered longer-term.

(5) Did Australia’s Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) in 1984 give verbal undertakings to UN member states that the Cocos Islands would not be used for military purposes; if so; what were the nature of these undertakings.

2004  Senator Abetz: To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—With reference to the answer to question no. 176 taken on notice during the Budget estimates hearings of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee in May 2012 and, in particular, the last paragraph which stated that the draft response was forwarded to the Minister’s office in mid April 2012: what was the exact date that the draft response was forwarded to the Minister’s office.

2005  Senator Abetz: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—Further to the answer to question on notice no. 1923 and given that the Treasurer promised in the 2011-12 Budget that the Government would create half a million jobs, how many jobs have been created to date.

2006  Senator Abetz: To ask the Minister representing the Treasurer—

(1) In relation to industrial disputation during the 2011-12 financial year: (a) what was the annual cost to the economy; and (b) what was the impact on Australia’s productivity.

(2) Does the Treasurer acknowledge that there has been an increase in industrial action; if so, has the Treasurer expressed concerns to either the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations or the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations about this increase or the impact of industrial disputation on the economy.

2007  Senator Abetz: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—With reference to the decision [2010] FWA 4030 CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Customs Service) (C2009/10664), was this decision made in relation to a dispute referred to Fair Work Australia (FWA) under a dispute resolution procedure in a workplace agreement made under the ‘Work Choices’ version of the Workplace Relations Act (the WR Act); if so:

(a) does the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 provide for the continued operation of the WR Act in relation to such disputes, including the dispute in the decision above, and including the privacy restrictions in section 712 of the WR Act; and

(b) why were the privacy restrictions in section 712 of the WR Act not applied to the decision as it is posted on the FWA website.