SENATE

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 

Proof Committee Hansard 

SENATE 

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION 

COMMITTEE 

Estimates 

(Public) 

MONDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2017 

CANBERRA 

CONDITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION 

This is an uncorrected proof of evidence taken before the committee. 

It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such. 

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE 

[PROOF COPY]

INTERNET 

Hansard transcripts of public hearings are made available on the 

internet when authorised by the committee. 

To search the parliamentary database, go to: 

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au

SENATE 

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 

Monday, 27 February 2017 

Members in attendance: Senators Abetz, Bernardi, Di Natale, Farrell, Hanson-Young, Hinch, Kakoschke- 

Moore, Kitching, Leyonhjelm, Lines, Ludlam, McAllister, McKenzie, Moore, O'Neill, Paterson, Polley, 

Rhiannon, Smith, Wong, Xenophon.

Monday, 27 February 2017 Senate Page 1 

Senator Parry, President of the Senate 

PARLIAMENT 

In Attendance 

Department of the Senate 

Mr Richard Pye, Acting Clerk of the Senate 

Mr Chris Reid, Clerk Assistant (Table) 

Ms Maureen Weeks, Clerk Assistant (Procedure) 

Ms Rachel Callinan, Usher of the Black Rod 

Mr Brien Hallett, Clerk Assistant (Committee) 

Mr Tim Grainger, Director Parliamentary Education Office 

Ms Michelle Crowther, Chief Financial Officer 

Parliamentary Budget Office 

Mr Phil Bowen, Parliamentary Budget Officer 

Mr Colin Brown, First Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer 

Mr Tim Pyne, First Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer 

Mr Paul Gardiner, Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer 

Mr Gareth Tunks, Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer 

Ms Karen Williams, Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer 

Mr David Tellis, Acting Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer 

Department of Parliamentary Services 

Mr Robert Stefanic, Secretary 

Parliamentary Library 

Dr Dianne Heriot, Parliamentary Librarian 

Information Services Division 

Mr Ian McKenzie, Acting Chief Information Officer 

Building and Security Division 

Mr Paul Cooper, Acting First Assistant Secretary 

Ms Fiona Knight, Assistant Secretary, Building Services 

Mr John Yanitsas, Assistant Secretary, Program Delivery 

Mr Michael Healy, Assistant Director, Capital Works 

Operations Division 

Ms Myra Croke, Chief Operating Officer 

Mr Nicholas Creagh, Chief Finance Officer 

Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Assistant Secretary, People and Governance 

Mr Luke Hickey, Assistant Secretary, Parliamentary Experience 

Committee met at 9:00 

CHAIR (Senator Paterson): I declare open this meeting of the Senate Finance and Public Administration 

Legislation Committee. Today the committee will begin its examination of the additional estimates for 2016-17 

for the parliamentary departments, the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, the Finance portfolio and crossportfolio 

Indigenous matters. The committee may also examine the annual reports of the departments and 

agencies appearing before it. The committee has fixed 13 April 2017 as the date for the return of answers to 

questions taken on notice. The committee's proceedings will begin today with the parliamentary departments, 

followed by the Parliamentary Service Commissioner. We will then proceed to outcome 1 of the Department of 

Prime Minister and Cabinet. At 5pm we will begin the Australian Public Service Commission, followed by the 

Office for Women with Minister Cash. At 8pm we will examine the secretariat to the Remuneration Tribunal, 

followed by the remaining agencies within the portfolio as listed on the program. Outcome 2 of the department 

will be examined on Friday at the cross-portfolio hearing. I note that the Australian National Audit Office will be 

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Page 2 Senate Monday, 27 February 2017 

examined this evening but will also be required to attend on Friday specifically regarding the recent performance 

audit of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. The Finance portfolio 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 a committee, and such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. It is also a 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 purposes of 

estimates hearings. I remind officers that the Senate has resolved that there are no areas in connection with the 

expenditure of public funds where any person has 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 an officer to a 

superior officer 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. 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. An officer called to answer a question for the first time should state their full name and the capacity in 

which they appear, and witnesses should speak clearly and into the microphone to assist Hansard to record 

proceedings. Mobile phones should be switched off or turned to silent. Officers are requested to keep opening 

statements brief or to seek to incorporate longer statements into the Hansard. 

On behalf of the committee, I would like to recognise the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the 

Parliament of New Zealand, the Rt Hon. David Carter MP. The committee also welcomes the Clerk of the House 

of Representatives of the Parliament of New Zealand, Mr David Wilson. I want to particularly thank you for your 

interest in Senate proceedings, given that you have a unicameral parliament. So thank you for paying attention to 

us. 

For the information of senators, the committee has agreed to a request from an ABC crew to film proceedings 

at various times during these hearings for a documentary on the parliament. As per usual practice with the media, 

they should follow the directions of the secretariat. 

Department of the Senate 

[09:03] 

CHAIR: I welcome the President of the Senate, Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry; the Acting Clerk of the 

Senate, Mr Richard Pye—and a particular welcome to you for your first hearings in the chair; and officers of the 

Department of the Senate. I thank the department for providing updated information on the Senate Occasional 

Lecture Series program and the Senate Committee Activity Report, which have been circulated to the committee. 

I note the new format for the report and the high level of activity in the Senate Committee Office. Senator Parry, 

do you have an opening statement that you would like to make? 

The President: Yes, very briefly, Chair. Thank you very much for those remarks. Could I also add my 

welcome to my friend the Speaker of the New Zealand parliament. This could be the road back to them getting a 

bicameral system. Let us hope this works. 

Could I just indicate that in the last estimates, Chair, you indicated that this would be, possibly, the last 

appearance of the current Clerk, Dr Rosemary Laing. Well, as we know, she is on leave and that will not be 

occurring. I did not formally place on record last time my appreciation for her service—I have done that in other 

forums—particularly in her role as the clerk at the table at estimates, so could I formally place on the record my 

thanks for her. As we know, I have made statements that Richard will be Acting Clerk until midnight on 8 March 

when he formally takes over the position of Clerk on 9 March, so we do welcome Richard as well. Thank you. 

Chair. 

CHAIR: My Pye, do you have anything to say? 

Mr Pye: I do not chair. 

CHAIR: Senator Wong? Senator McAllister? 



Senator McALLISTER: Welcome, Mr Pye, to your first estimates. I want to start by talking about enterprise 

bargaining. We talked about this at the last estimates. I understand the current agreement expired in 2015 and 

there was a process to restart the bargaining process, and that concluded on 30 January this year. Is that correct? 

Mr Pye: That is nearly correct. The current enterprise agreement did have a nominal expiry date of 30 June 

2015. We started a process to replace that and went through the usual round of bargaining. Towards the end of 

last year,—and I do not have the date in front of me—out of an abundance of caution, we closed off one round of 

bargaining and began a second round of bargaining, after having taken advice that other agencies also had about a 

possible technical deficiency in some of the originating documentation. We continued with that, I guess, revived 

process through the end of last year and the beginning of this year. We have had a vote on the enterprise 

agreement. The access period was during the last sitting fortnight with the vote taken in the last sitting week, and 

the vote was unsuccessful. We had 77 per cent of staff taking part in the vote, 72 per cent voted against the 

proposal and 28 per cent voted in favour. 

Senator McALLISTER: That is quite staunch opposition. 

Mr Pye: It is. 

Senator McALLISTER: Can you explain why the agreement was rejected? 

Mr Pye: I would only be guessing if I sought to do that at the moment. The first thing I did, after receiving 

advice from the people tallying up the vote for us, was to write to all of my staff to let them know that I would be 

opening a period of feedback so that we can work out what the precise motivations of people were. One of the 

difficulties, I think, with the way that enterprise bargaining has been working our department for the last couple of 

rounds is that we do not have a lot of people around the bargaining table, so we get an indication of factors that 

are motivating some people, but we do not how far that really goes into the views of the broader staff. 

Senator McALLISTER: Are you saying that the people at the bargaining table are not representative of staff? 

Mr Pye: No, I am saying that staff get to nominate themselves as bargaining representatives—there is, 

obviously, a CPSU representative around the table—and staff can nominate other people to be their 

representatives. We do not know how many people are genuinely represented around the table, so we are just 

trying to seek broader views from everybody in the department who would like to give a view. The only thing, I 

suppose, we know for sure is that there was a hefty vote against the bargain, and we would like to reset the agenda 

a little bit as we go back into a new bargaining phase. 

Senator McALLISTER: What is the timetable for the new bargaining phase? 

Mr Pye: I do not have any particular time in mind. I have asked for staff to give feedback by 17 March which 

is immediately before the next sitting fortnight. I imagine that it will be straight after that sitting fortnight that we 

get a better sense of how we can proceed. I would rather we proceed faster rather than slower. 

Senator McALLISTER: I understand that, in the offer that was rejected, the Department of the Senate 

offered the maximum pay that was allowable under the bargaining policy, is that correct? 

Mr Pye: That is correct. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is the Senate bound by that policy? Is there any flexibility? Can you go above? 

Mr Pye: I do not know that we can, Senator. It is not a question that has been tested. Over the nearly 20 years 

that we have had enterprise bargaining at agency level in the Public Service, the parliamentary departments have 

always followed the bargaining policies that have been set down. It seems to me that it may be counterproductive 

to try to move outside that bargaining policy, given that the Senate department, like all other departments, is 

reliant on the government in the appropriations sense to put forward the funding for the department. There is a 

theoretical possibility, I suppose, that the parliamentary departments could take a different view, but we certainly 

do not have anything in the Parliamentary Service Act that suggests we would be bargaining on a different basis 

to the rest of the Public Service. 

Senator McALLISTER: But you are now seeking to reach an agreement. You have been unable to reach an 

agreement so far. If you did seek to move outside the bargaining framework, would it be possible? Irrespective of 

whether or not it is desirable from your perspective, is it possible and how would you go about doing so? 

Mr Pye: I do not know. It would be a question for the two Presiding Officers in the first instance, I suppose. 

The question really is whether— 

Senator McALLISTER: Can they make the decision? 

Mr Pye: It would certainly be a discussion with them, Senator. Part of the current bargaining policy and 

framework requires approval of policies by the Public Service Commissioner. I imagine that, if parliamentary 



departments sought to go outside that process, nonetheless it would be the Public Service Commissioner who 

would have a similar role in approving the bargain, and it is the same person who resides in both of those offices. 

I imagine that if the Parliamentary Service Commissioner and the Public Service Commissioner have the same 

view, then it would not really be possible to go outside the framework. But there is— 

Senator McALLISTER: So the Parliamentary Service Commissioner or the Public Service Commissioner 

could approve a proposed agreement that was outside the bargaining framework. 

Mr Pye: The Public Service Commissioner sets the terms of the framework, so presumably across the Public 

Service more broadly the Public Service Commissioner could take a different stance on the policy. 

Senator McALLISTER: Could the minister take a different stance? The minister can direct the Public 

Service Commissioner. 

Mr Pye: Which minister are we talking about? 

Senator McALLISTER: That is my question to you. 

Mr Pye: This is the point, I suppose. We do not have a minister; we do have the President in a ministerial-like 

capacity. But we have to remember that the President and the Speaker jointly look after two of the other 

parliamentary departments, and it would not be a decision for the President. I do not know whether there has been 

any discussion about that possibility. 

Senator McALLISTER: Mr President? 

The President: My inclination would be—and this is without consultation with the Speaker—certainly in 

relation to the Senate—and I assume the Speaker would have a similar view—that it would stay within the 

framework. There is a critical issue here. Whilst we are independent from the executive, and I think people 

around here understand that that is my strong view, we are nonetheless reliant upon the executive for funding for 

the parliamentary departments. If we go cap in hand to the finance minister asking for money and one of the 

reasons is that we have stepped outside the framework, I think that makes our case exceptionally difficult. 

Equally, we have already stepped outside the framework. We do not participate in the ERC process. I have direct 

negotiation with the Minister for Finance in relation to funding for the Department of the Senate. When we have 

gone and asked for realistic additional funding we seek, we get realistic additional funding. If we stepped outside 

the bargaining framework I think that would diminish our relationship and our legitimate cause for getting the 

funding we need to run the departments. 

Senator WONG: Mr President, can I start with question on notice No. 46. I asked you for a copy of a letter 

from former Prime Minister Abbott to you relating to a proposed extension by that Prime Minister to the 

ministerial wing. You have given me an answer that says this: 

The provision of this correspondence would not be appropriate due to the longstanding convention that correspondence to a 

Presiding Officer is not given to committees of the other chamber. In accordance with this convention— 

I am not aware of that convention, first— 

correspondence to a Speaker would not be given to Senate committees, similarly, correspondence to a President would not be 

given to House Committees. The correspondence in question was addressed to both Presiding Officers. 

What you are telling me is that because a Prime Minister writes to both of you in one letter, as opposed to two 

different letters, you are going to refuse to provide the letter to Senate estimates. 

The President: I can only release the letter if the other party agrees to me releasing it. The other party in this 

case would be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Senator WONG: Have you asked him? 

The President: I think the letter you are referring to was to the former Speaker. 

Senator WONG: Have you asked her? Frankly, it is an episode out of Hollow Men. It is saying, 'If we had 

two different addresses you would have it but because we wrote to you together neither of you can have it.' And 

this is in relation to a proposal about this building. It is not party political or policy advice to government. It is a 

proposal about a proposed extension to the ministerial wing. I would have thought transparency would require 

that this sort of, frankly, trick was not engaged in. 

The President: I reject the notion of it being a trick. 

Senator WONG: Mr President, you do accept that if the letters were separately addressed you would provide 

it. 

The President: I do not accept that premise either. 

Senator WONG: But that is what your answer says. 



The President: Just a moment. 

Senator WONG: But that is what your answer says. 

The President: Let me go back. I do not have a copy of that. I would like to read that again. 

Senator WONG: Can someone give him question on notice 46? It is his answer. 

The President: Thank you. Secondly, Senator Wong— 

Senator WONG: Perhaps we could just get that so that you can see what you said. In fairness to you, Mr 

President, because your answer— 

The President: I will just make another comment, Senator Wong. Firstly, this particularly relates to DPS, 

really, rather than to the Senate. But I am happy to deal with it here if you want to deal with it here. 

Senator WONG: It would be useful if you could see what you actually said to me before you answer it, I 

think. 

The President: I have just been informed, Senator Wong, whilst we were waiting, that the Speaker said—and 

it was former Speaker Senator Bishop—not to release the document. 

Senator WONG: She does not want it released. 

The President: She did not consent for that particular document at that particular time. 

Senator WONG: So because she did not want to release it you are not going to release it to us. 

The President: It is a joint letter, Senator Wong, and the same would happen the other way. If there were a 

letter addressed to both of us and I did not want it released she would have to abide by that decision, if that was 

the reverse case. 

Senator WONG: Can you tell us what was in it? What was the request? There is a principle here, Mr 

President. I understand what you are saying about the other house but I think, given your answer, if the letters had 

been separately addressed, all other things being equal the correspondence from former Prime Minister Abbott 

about extensions to the ministerial wing could be provided. 

The President: You are relying on the last statement in the response to the question on notice, which is: 'The 

correspondence in question was addressed to both Presiding Officers.' 

Senator WONG: No, I am relying on the entirety of the answer. It says— 

The President: Senator Wong, you have asked me a question. Can I at least answer the question? 

Senator WONG: But that was incorrect, Mr President. The whole answer, the nub of the answer, is the 

'longstanding convention that correspondence to a Presiding Officer is not given to committees of the other 

chamber.' Because the correspondence is addressed to both of you, you are saying you cannot give it to the Senate 

committee. 

The President: It says, 'correspondence to a Presiding Officer'; it does not say 'both Presiding Officers'. The 

last sentence, 'The correspondence in question was given to both Presiding Officers', is a statement of fact. It is 

not saying that that is the only reason; it is just a statement of fact. Each case where correspondence is considered 

to be released is taken on its merits—whether it is addressed to one or both, whether it is identical or not identical. 

Obviously if it was correspondence addressed to me in a non-identical manner to the Speaker then I would 

consider it on its merits. In this particular case, regarding the question you particularly asked the Speaker at the 

time, Speaker Bishop, she said she was not prepared for the correspondence to be released. Whether or not I 

wanted to consider it further is irrespective, because it is correspondence that was not dually considered to be 

released. 

Senator WONG: But if it had been to you separately she could not have vetoed its release. 

The President: If it had been to me separately and not identical in nature then I would have considered it on 

its merits. I could not get to that step because this was not the case. 

Senator WONG: So a former Speaker, who has resigned in disgrace, is able to ensure that you withhold from 

the parliament information about the government's plans to extend the ministerial wing? Just so we are clear. 

The President: You have had my answer, Senator Wong, and that was that we did not release the letter. 

Senator WONG: What was in the letter? What was the proposal in the letter? 

The President: Obviously if I am not going to release the letter I am not going to divulge the contents. 

Senator WONG: Why? 



The President: Because of the fact that we are not releasing the letter. There are many things that we do not 

release, and that is a letter that we are not releasing. 

Senator WONG: What is the public policy basis upon which you say Australians should not know what plans 

the government was engaging in to extend—at their expense, at taxpayers' expense—the ministerial wing? 

The President: I think if I recall correctly my answers at the time were that there was not a proposal at that 

particular point in time to extend the ministerial wing. I think you did ask me questions about a particular design. 

I gave some information at that particular estimates hearing that the presiding officers did not consider extending 

the ministerial wing. 

Senator WONG: You would agree that there was a letter from Mr Abbott about an extension to the 

ministerial wing, because I think that was agreed in past estimates. 

The President: I do not think we agreed to that either. In fact—again, I will need to go back and check—I do 

not think there was a letter requesting that. I think that was supposition. 

Senator WONG: No, I think that is contrary to previous evidence. 

The President: I stand to be corrected. But there have been no plans presented to the presiding officers to 

extend the ministerial wing for approval. There have been many discussions and concepts over many years, but 

there have been no plans to extend the ministerial wing that the presiding officers—that Speaker Bishop or 

myself—considered. 

Senator WONG: Was there a letter or not? Because that would be a different answer to the one you have 

given earlier today and in writing. 

The President: Again, I would have to refresh my memory on the content of the letter. 

Senator WONG: Yes, maybe you should. This was a question on notice. There is a written answer which is 

different to the one you have just given. 

The President: It is not different to the one I have just given. 

Senator WONG: It is. You did not say in the answer that there was not a letter or that the letter did not deal 

with an extension. You said, 'We're not going to release the letter because it's to both the Speaker and me.' That is 

a different answer. 

The President: Correct. Also, I did indicate that the content of the letter would have been a consideration of 

mine as well. 

Senator McALLISTER: On this question, Mr President, I am interested to understand whether you are 

claiming public interest immunity, and on what grounds, in refusing to release the letter. 

The President: I do not think I need to claim public interest immunity. 

Senator WONG: Yes, you do. Of course you do. 

Senator McALLISTER: I think you will find the standing orders suggest that you do. 

Senator WONG: Would you like to take some advice? 

The President: Let me go back and view the correspondence and the estimates transcript of the previous 

answers, because this is going back well over 18 months. 

Senator WONG: Yes, we have been trying to get it for a while. That is true. 

CHAIR: Given the time, I think I will move the call around. 

Senator WONG: Sure. 

CHAIR: Mr Pye, you might be familiar with an article in the Financial Review on the weekend about Senate 

committee workload. 

Mr Pye: I did see that article. 

CHAIR: I will quickly refresh your memory of some of the statistics in the article. I might ask on notice for 

you to flesh them out a little bit more for us. It said in the 43rd Parliament there were 65 reference matters, in the 

44th Parliament there were 135 reference matters and in this parliament so far there have already been 100. 

Mr Pye: I do not think that figure is correct. There seems to have been some confusion in the last statistic of 

references committees versus references to standing committees more broadly. There have been 107—according 

to the material we have provided to the committee—matters put before legislation and references committees 

jointly. I think there have been something like 26 matters that were readopted at the beginning of this parliament 

by either legislation or references committees, and then a number of bills and a number of references. Those 



figures conflate, I think, the number of references to references committees in the previous parliament with both 

references and legislation committees this time around. 

Senator WONG: Could we disaggregate them? 

CHAIR: Yes, that is what I was going to ask. On notice, if you could break it down. 

Mr Pye: I think that they have been disaggregated in the letter that I have provided to the committee. 

CHAIR: For the previous parliaments as well or just this one? 

Mr Pye: I can certainly go back and disaggregate them. 

Senator WONG: Can I just clarify that answer? So the 107 or 111—whatever the number is—was legislation 

and references referrals, but the comparator from earlier years that was used in the article was references only. 

Mr Pye: Was references only. 

CHAIR: So if we could break down in those last three parliaments which where legislation and which were 

references—and Senate select committees as well. 

Mr Pye: We can take that on notice. 

CHAIR: I understand that for some committee secretariats the workload of all of this has been quite high and 

some committees have had to hire additional staff to meet that workload. 

Mr Pye: I do not know that we are hiring additional staff so much as, a couple of years ago, we established a 

kind of troubleshooting secretariat—I think we referred to it as 'surge capacity' in some of our material—which 

gives us a greater ability to deploy staff to committees that are busier. 

CHAIR: So, no additional staff in this parliament have been hired? 

Mr Pye: We have increased our staff complement this parliament, yes, to meet that, but we are not bringing in 

contractors or anything. 

CHAIR: No, of course not. How many extra staff have been hired? 

Mr Pye: I think the numbers are in your package. I will just find them. We are up to 69 full-time equivalent 

staff in the committee office right now. The average in the last parliament was 67, but we, obviously, would have 

had a lower staffing complement in the first couple of months of this parliament, so we expect that the numbers 

will be in the low 70s as an average by the end of this financial year. 

CHAIR: Which is the highest in the years of data you have provided. 

Mr Pye: That is right. 

CHAIR: This will definitely need to be on notice, but, as a proportion of the Senate's budget, how much is 

now going to committee activities relative to other activities? 

Mr Pye: We are talking about the committee office rather than committees more broadly. As you know there 

are committees that are looked after by some of the other offices as well. It is about $8.8 million out of about $23 

million, so a third. 

CHAIR: Historically is that about proportional or is it higher than usual? 

Mr Pye: It is a bit higher than usual. 

CHAIR: Perhaps you could quantify, proportionally over the last three parliaments, what the figures have 

been? 

Mr Pye: We can do that for you on notice, Chair. 

CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Smith. 

Senator McALLISTER: Before we leave this minor questioning, in taking these questions on notice, of those 

34 references in this last parliament, could you indicate which of those were supported by the government in the 

chamber, which would be of assistance as well. 

Mr Pye: I will certainly be able to do that where a division was taken, but where matters are voted on the 

voices it is a very difficult thing to do. 

Senator McALLISTER: I understand. Thank you, Mr Pye. 

Mr Pye: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIR: Senator Smith. 

Senator SMITH: At page 4 of the document you provided to us, Clerk, there is a figure under 'Joint standing 

select', which says that staff costs for the year 2015-16 was 719. 



Mr Pye: It is actually a correct figure. I asked the same question. That figure represents just the tail end of 

some expenditure on the Joint Select Committee on the Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres 

Strait Islander Peoples. We did not look after any joint standing committees or select committees for the rest of 

that year. 

Senator SMITH: To be clear it is $217,860 for 2014-15, $358,071 for 2016-17, but just $719. 

Mr Pye: That is correct. I was surprised as well. 

Senator SMITH: It is reassuring to know we read the documents you provide us. The point that was being 

made in the AFR story was that there was a much heavier committee workload being experienced by the Senate 

and whether or not that was providing the Senate with the best possible outcomes in terms of quality of reports 

and whether or not the Senate was providing enough courtesy to witnesses if senators were not attending. What 

are the various options available to the Senate if it wanted to better manage committee workloads and references, 

because there are two elements to that: there is the legislative program, which is set by government, but there is 

the references process, which is set by the Senate. What are the various options that the Senate could employ? 

Mr Pye: I think I would be echoing Dr Laing and Mr Evans in saying that the question here is one for senators 

rather than for the department to dictate. It takes a majority of senators to send a reference to a Senate committee 

and senators themselves, over many years, have recognised that there is a limit to their capacity to be involved in 

committee inquiries. We certainly have employed some additional staff this year, as the level of committee 

activity has increased over the last six or seven years. We do that to make sure that we can respond to the 

demands of senators and the Senate itself, but any question about the proper way of filtering or prioritising or 

sorting out questions of the merit of different matters coming to Senate committees is really a question for 

senators themselves. I think in a previous round of estimates we have talked about the selection of bills 

committee, which has on its agenda at every meeting a list of the extant Senate committee inquiries before each 

committee, which are intended to help that committee to understand the workload of those committees that 

matters are being referred to. We do not have a similar filtering process or information process for other 

committees. One of the things I am intending to do is take the format of the committee information that we have 

given to this committee this week and turn it into a handy web page so that people will be able to have their 

attention drawn to the level of committee activity, the number of references before different committees at any 

stage, and senators may wish to use that to help them decide on their priorities. 

Senator SMITH: The committee system is a hallmark of the Australian Senate. It is one of the things that 

distinguishes it from other upper houses around the world. Are you concerned that the value of the work that is 

being done by committees might be being diminished because of the limited time that senators might have to 

apply themselves to certain inquiries, because of the number of inquiries they have to participate in? Have you 

seen any signs of that thus far? 

Mr Pye: I do have the same concerns in that area, as I think my predecessors have. You have nailed the source 

of the possible problem there, Senator, which is the ability of senators to give due consideration to the matters that 

do come before committees. That is the real limitation on the quality of committee work. We have seen some very 

good committee reports coming out of the Committee Office consistently over many years now. I think one of the 

other strengths of the Senate committee system is that the Senate can choose which matters should go to 

committees and be considered by committees. If you look at many of the other committee systems in many other 

parliaments there is a limitation on what can go to many of their committees. You tend to have, particularly in 

lower houses, the sense that it is the government's program that is going to committees. One of the strengths of the 

Senate is that it is a majority of senators that send matters to Senate committees. The question of the ability of the 

system to continue to maintain the quality that Senate committees have a reputation for is very much in the hands 

of senators. It would be a shame to attempt to artificially restrain the matters that can go before committees 

because of workload. 

Senator SMITH: Have you or other officials in the Department of the Senate had concerns shared with you 

by people outside the Senate about the quality of reports, or concerns about appearing at Senate committee 

hearings when there have been very few senators in attendance? Have any concerns been raised with you or other 

officials? 

Mr Pye: I do not know. The pattern of feedback in that area has changed very much in the last five, six or so 

years. We are always concerned about what we loosely call 'witness fatigue'. If witnesses are being invited along 

to talk to Senate committees about the same topics time and again, it can be very difficult for them to respond. 

And obviously where committees have very short time frames that can be very difficult as well. 



Senator SMITH: For senators who have to travel great distances, from Western Australia or the Northern 

Territory—Senator Dodson, for example, is from Broome in the far north of Western Australia—is the Senate 

putting its mind to greater utilisation of video conferencing to reduce travel costs and to increase flexibility for 

senators to participate? 

Mr Pye: Indeed. The parliament more broadly is looking at that. We now have videoconferencing facilities set 

up in two committee rooms here, which are intended to certainly bring witnesses in and can be used as well to 

bring senators in from remote locations, from electorate officers and so forth. I understand that there is a 

substantial piece of work being commenced by the Department of Parliamentary Services ICT branch to look at 

different ways of deploying video conferencing in senators' and members' electorate officers as well, which may 

feed into that. 

Senator WONG: I asked some questions, I think of the Usher of the Black Rod on the last occasion, in 

relation to security. You said you had to confirm with Security Branch the staffing arrangements for additional 

security checkpoints. Are you aware of the answer to question on notice No. 13 to the Department of 

Parliamentary Services? This is a question where I asked, essentially, when has the Department of Parliamentary 

Services been unable to cover all security shifts. I was told it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources to 

identify every occasion. But they did give me this answer: 

It is … reasonable to state that Security Branch has experienced daily instances where operational demand has exceeded 

available resourcing. 

Is that consistent with your knowledge of the security arrangements? That we have basically got staff missing 

every day from what is required? Sorry, I should not say 'staff missing'. Insufficient staff to fully staff all security 

points. 

Ms Callinan: Sorry, unfortunately I have not read the answer to that question. I was not aware, I guess, to that 

level that that is the situation. The security points that are of particular concern to me in terms of my 

responsibilities are most immediately, of course, the Senate chamber, as we spoke about at the last estimates 

hearing. I would imagine that, if the DPS Security Branch or the AFP had significant concerns about its ability to 

staff checkpoints, or that that response that they gave you was giving rise to concerns that they were not 

adequately staffing those points, or that it was causing a security weakness at Parliament House that would be the 

kind of matter that would be brought to the Security Management Board, and it has not. 

Senator WONG: I have been provided with copies of the daily staffing sheets, a high-level summary. For a 

particular day I can tell you that there are open shifts, which is an indication that they are not staffed, in the reps 

gallery sitting, Senate entry sitting, Senate gallery chamber floor sitting and Senate gallery sitting. Has that ever 

been brought to your attention? I am just picking one day. 

Ms Callinan: It has not been brought to my attention. As I am sure people are aware, I am not responsible for 

operational security for the security services. I am, however, a member of the Security Management Board. So if 

there was an ongoing and systemic problem that was causing a weakness in security at Parliament House, I would 

expect that the matter should be brought to the Security Management Board's attention. 

Senator WONG: At the last estimates, I think you told me you would confirm with Security Branch's staffing 

arrangements for additional security checkpoints. Did you do that? 

Ms Callinan: Senator, my recollection of that hearing was that I said that I would need to check that if that 

was a bit of information that you were requiring of me. It was not a question on notice as such, which does not 

mean to say that I— 

Senator WONG: No, I am just referring to your answer. I can find the Hansard if you would like. I have here 

that you said: 'I would have to confirm with Security Branch,' which is in relation to the staffing arrangements for 

additional security checkpoints. Did you do that? 

Ms Callinan: I did not undertake that because, when I reflected on that hearing, it was not a question on 

notice that I agreed to undertake. 

Senator WONG: So I have to formally put things on notice, do I, because an indication in the hearing that 

you are going to do something is not sufficient, Ms Callinan? 

Ms Callinan: No, of course not. That is not right. If I felt that a matter raised at a hearing was within my 

responsibilities to check and follow-up then I would do so. Unfortunately in relation to that questioning I did not 

leave the hearing with the impression that I would go and seek that information out. 

Senator WONG: On the last occasion I asked you some questions about occasions on which Senate galleries, 

et cetera, were not staffed properly. Has that occurred again? 



Ms Callinan: That has not occurred again to my knowledge, no. Following that hearing I did follow up with 

DPS Security Branch in relation to that particular matter, seeking assurance from Security Branch that the Senate 

chamber galleries would be appropriately staffed at all times, and that assurance was given to me. 

Senator WONG: I noticed your reaction when I quoted DPS saying there were daily instances where 

operational demand has exceeded available resourcing. As a member of the Security Management Board have 

you ever been told that? 

Ms Callinan: No, I have not been told that in that way. 

Senator WONG: It seems kind of extraordinary. We are in a higher risk environment, taxpayers are spending 

a lot of money on increased security arrangements in Parliament House, I get answers to questions which make it 

clear that we do not fully resource security points—and these go across the galleries and other events—but you 

are on the committee that is supposed to oversight this, and no-one has ever told you that we have a daily issue 

with filling the rosters. 

Ms Callinan: I am aware that DPS has been doing recruitment in the space its PSS staffing, so I am broadly 

aware that there are some staffing resourcing issues in relation to the additional checkpoints. That, by and large, is 

a matter for DPS in their Security Branch and the AFP with overall command and control of security in the 

building. I certainly take the point that it is a matter that the Security Management Board should be interested in 

and, if appropriate, should seek information about. 

The President: Chair, could I add to that comment? 

CHAIR: Mr President, yes. 

The President: Thank you, Chair. Senator Wong, there may be people listening to this coverage and I do not 

want it left on the record that there may be gaps within our security. I accept that you have documentation and I 

am not going to suggest that it is not authentic documentation. I will take you at your word on that. 

Senator WONG: I appreciate that. 

The President: Those gaps might be in the entirety of the rosters, so I think critical points would always be 

covered to ensure that Parliament House is secure. Can I tell you that, as far as the presiding officers are 

concerned, security is a very important for issue for us and has been many years. None of what you have 

suggested and what you indicate has been raised with the presiding officers. I can certainly support the Usher of 

the Black Rod and say that it has not come through the Security Management Board or indeed through the 

security task force. 

Senator WONG: I do not want to spend time on this. We need to get onto DPS and there is a lot on the 

program, but it might be useful. The documents I have are not consistent with what you just told me because the 

open shifts note relates to ministerial wings sitting, main front sitting. As I said there were days where we have 

public gallery, Senate gallery and House of Reps gallery with open shifts. 

The President: It needs to be defined as to what an open shift is. 

Senator WONG: As I understand it an open shift is where, in the case of resourcing, that many personnel are 

required but as yet they have not found someone to fill that shift as at the time this document is generated. I am 

going to leave it to you to perhaps inquire further into that because I think it is an important issue to follow up. 

The President: Absolutely. 

Senator WONG: I will certainly ask DPS. Can I also, Mr President, just clarify this for you. I now have the 

Hansard in relation to the letter. You said: 

Yes, the former Prime Minister wrote to me and the Speaker in early September last year requesting that we look at 

provision for having an extension to the ministerial wing. 

That is Hansard at page 95. So the existence of the letter and the content of the letter were something you 

specifically gave evidence about. 

The President: Thank you. I think my recollection serves me correct and I did respond that we did not agree 

to any request. 

Senator WONG: You gave me some detail. You said: 

It noted there would be funds available in the contingency and asked us look at it—also asking us to look at it in the light 

of possible additional security measures for the hardening of the ministerial wing, noting that at that point in time we were 

discussing internally a number of options for the ministerial wing … 

Et cetera. 

The President: I will review that Hansard, and if I need to come back to you I will. 



Senator KITCHING: Ms Callinan, could I ask you a question about paper and paper procurement. I think at 

the last estimates in October you were asked about paper procurement. You said an assessment was due in that 

quarter. What was the outcome of that assessment? Firstly, has that assessment taken place? 

Ms Callinan: Yes, that assessment has taken place. The outcome was that we kept with the same paper that 

we had been procuring. During that assessment we assessed three additional papers above the last complement 

that we assessed. Nonetheless, on the basis of the criteria that we assess on, the paper that we have been procuring 

since about June of 2015 was the paper that was assessed to be the best value for money during that process. 

Senator KITCHING: So value for money was the only criterion? 

Ms Callinan: No, sorry. I should have said that it was assessed against all criteria to be the best paper. We use 

other criteria, of course. One of those is that we test all the paper to make sure that it is fit for purpose. We run it 

through various machines and things like that. 

Senator KITCHING: There is a reason I ask about the criteria. The Department of the Senate will not be 

returning to using Australian made paper? 

Ms Callinan: We assessed the paper on the basis of a number of criteria. We are required to follow the 

Commonwealth procurement rules in our assessments. Under the procurement rules, we are not able to 

discriminate against country of origin. So we cannot make a decision based on the country itself. 

Senator KITCHING: There have been recent changes to the Commonwealth procurement rules. That did not 

have an impact on the decision to retain the paper? 

Ms Callinan: No, I do not think so. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator KITCHING: In a question on notice you were asked about the Anti-Dumping Commission in 

relation to copying paper. Has any consideration been given to the work of the Anti-Dumping Commission in 

relation to paper? 

Ms Callinan: Yes. Following that hearing we did look at the work of the Anti-Dumping Commission. To the 

extent that we can refer to that under the requirements of the Commonwealth procurement rules et cetera, we will 

refer to that in our assessments going forward. 

Senator KITCHING: But not this assessment just done? Because I think the question on notice indicated that 

you would have consideration of the Anti-Dumping Commission in relation to copying paper, certainly in the last 

quarter. You used the future tense, so you said, 'It will be taken into consideration.' But it was not taken into 

consideration for this one? 

Ms Callinan: I would have to check in terms of the one that we did in November and December. Nonetheless, 

as I understand it, the country of origin of the paper that we do use is Austria. We did look at the work of the 

Anti-Dumping Commission at that stage and certainly after that hearing. We learned through doing that that 

Austria was not one of the countries that was being investigated, at least in the information that is publicly 

provided by the Anti-Dumping Commission. 

Senator KITCHING: Has the Department of the Senate had any discussions with the Department of Finance 

on paper procurement? 

Ms Callinan: No, not to my knowledge. 

CHAIR: I thank the Department of the Senate. 

Parliamentary Budget Office 

[09:49] 

CHAIR: I welcome the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr Phil Bowen, and officers of the Parliamentary 

Budget Office. I thank the office for providing updated information on PBO activity, which has been circulated to 

the committee. Mr Bowen, do you wish to make an opening statement? 

Mr Bowen: No, thanks. 

Senator McALLISTER: Welcome. I wanted to ask you about a couple of the reports that you have released 

in recent months, starting with the report on the Future Fund. That report, essentially, examines two scenarios. It 

goes to the question of timing—when the drawdown of the Future Fund commences. I thought it would be helpful 

if you could just outline for us those two scenarios that you contemplate in the report—fairly briefly, because 

obviously I am conscious of time. 

Mr Bowen: The two scenarios were, firstly, a drawdown in 2020-21, when the act that governs the Future 

Fund first allows a drawdown to happen. Secondly, we looked at a drawdown which would be later, at a point 



when the balance of the fund was sufficient to offset the present value of the unfunded superannuation liabilities 

of the government. That was, in this case, on our assumptions, 2024-25. So they were the two broad scenarios. 

Senator McALLISTER: The government, as I understand it, is yet to make a decision about when it will 

commence drawing down. Could you just talk a little bit about the costs and benefits of pursuing either strategy? I 

am going to ask you shortly, too, about some of the variables that impact on the analysis. Just thinking about the 

choice that is before us, what are the costs and benefits of pursuing each strategy? 

Mr Bowen: On the assumptions that we used in our analysis, the key difference is that the later drawdown 

scenario results in a significantly higher net financial worth for the Commonwealth than the immediate 

drawdown. Under the immediate drawdown, the Future Fund would be exhausted well before the superannuation 

liability is finished. Under the later drawdown, essentially you are matching a long-term liability with a long-term 

asset. Our conclusion, or our findings, hold provided the Future Fund investment returns exceed the government's 

bond rate—so, its cost of borrowings. To date, of course, the Future Fund has well and truly exceeded the cost of 

government borrowings. Whether that would be the case in the future, well, we cannot say absolutely. But it is 

difficult to see that a fund such as the Future Fund could not earn at least, if not more than, the long-term bond 

rate. 

Senator McALLISTER: You modelled the consequences of the return dropping to, say, CPI plus four per 

cent. That is a scenario that has been contemplated by the Future Fund in evidence, I think, before this committee 

previously. 

Mr Bowen: That may be the case. I am not sure. If I could make one point— 

Senator WONG: Who did the report? 

Mr Bowen: It was a PBO report. Tim Pyne can talk in a minute. I want to make one point. 

Senator WONG: That would be useful, thank you. We would not mind going beyond what has actually been 

tabled. 

Mr Bowen: If I can remember my point I will make it. In our analysis we did choose to do a sensitivity 

analysis on a lower rate of return. What you have to remember too is, if the return on equities is lower in the 

future—and that is possible—it is highly likely that the return on cash will also be lower and hence there will still 

be a differential between cash or bond rate and equity return. I am very happy for Mr Pyne to talk in more detail. 

Senator McALLISTER: Mr Pyne, is there anything that you would like to add? I have read the report, I 

understand that you held the long-term cost of borrowing stable even while you reduced the return, and Mr 

Bowen observes that this is actually an unlikely scenario in some ways. What is the impact, though, of having the 

spread between the cost of borrowing and the returns to the fund narrow in this way? 

Mr Pyne: In modelling the scenarios, which we included in the report, one of the key things to note is that we 

used a long-term cost-of-borrowing assumption that was consistent with the medium-term projections that are 

included in the budget papers and also consistent with the Intergenerational report. We were not attempting to 

make an individual judgement about the long-term cost of borrowing. In terms of our assumptions around the 

Future Fund we were choosing an investment return that we thought was consistent with that long-term cost of 

borrowing, so that broadly represented a margin that 1½ per cent annually over the borrowing cost. 

In doing our sensitivity analysis, as Mr Bowen pointed out, we were not doing a sensitivity analysis on what 

would be the case if there were changes in interest rates and equity returns over the whole of the economy, which 

at times has been some of the public discussion. We were really doing a sensitivity analysis on the investment 

management performance of the Future Fund. We were still holding those interest rates constant but looking at 

what would be the case if the Future Fund only slightly exceeded the cost of borrowing. 

Senator WONG: I am not across all of the detail of this in the way that Senator McAllister is, but essentially 

one of the scenarios, or your central scenario, assumes a return which is at the midpoint of the mandated target 

return—correct?— 

Mr Pyne: Yes, that is right. 

Senator WONG: which is less than what is assumed in the budget. The budget assumes a five per cent gross 

real return. Is that not right? Have I misread this? 

Mr Pyne: I think our assumption is broadly consistent with what is in the budget. 

Senator McALLISTER: Although in the sensitivity analysis you pull the estimated return down lower, and 

the key findings. If you said to meet the unfunded superannuation liabilities, you have to wait longer before you 

start drawing down on the fund— 



Mr Pyne: That is right. 

Senator McALLISTER: under that scenario. 

Senator WONG: I noticed Mr Costello has publicly expressed concerns about the return target. Are you 

familiar with that, Mr Bowen? Have you seen those comments? 

Mr Pyne: Yes. 

Senator WONG: He has also said publicly that the fund had raised its concerns with the government. Are you 

aware of the content of those discussions? 

Mr Pyne: No, Senator. 

Senator WONG: Have any of your discussions contemplated, or do you have a view about, how realistic the 

current return target, as budgeted for, is? 

Mr Pyne: No, I do not have a view. 

Senator McALLISTER: I want to ask about a different report—the report you have released on unlegislated 

measures. That came out in February 2017. The report has unlegislated budget improvements of $8.5 billion over 

the forward estimates. Is that different from the number in MYEFO? 

Mr Bowen: This is based on MYEFO. But it depends on your definition of 'an unlegislated measure'. 

Senator McALLISTER: I think that is what we are trying to sort out. We get MYEFO and then we get your 

report. We are just trying to understand what the factors are in each of those. 

Mr Bowen: I know— 

Senator WONG: Why is your costing different from some of the public statements from the government? We 

just want to understand what they are including that you are not, or vice versa. 

Mr Bowen: Let me tell you what we are including, or what we are not including. We are not including 

measures that are yet to be legislated but have not yet been introduced into the parliament. Putting it the other 

way: our measures are measures which are carried forward from previous budgets and which have been 

introduced but remain unlegislated. I know there has been a figure in the public domain of $13 billion. Our figure 

is eight point something. As I understand it, the difference represents measures that have not yet been introduced. 

I think that is correct? 

Mr Pyne: I think so. 

Mr Bowen: That is our understanding. 

Senator McALLISTER: Amongst other things, then, your February report would not include the omnibus 

bill that was recently announced and introduced? 

Mr Bowen: Tim, would you like to comment on that? 

Mr Pyne: A number of the measures in our list are outstanding ones which—I think they would be included? 

Mr Bowen: I have a list. 

Senator McALLISTER: Can you table that? 

Senator WONG: We are pressed for time. Is it possible that that be tabled? 

Mr Bowen: I was not going to read it all out, but just let me see if I can give you this. I do not see any reason 

we cannot. It highlights those which are in the omnibus bill. There are a large proportion, but there are others that 

are not. We will just copy the table for you. 

CHAIR: I thank the Parliamentary Budget Office. 

Department of Parliamentary Services 

[10:04] 

CHAIR: I welcome Mr Rob Stefanic, Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services; Dr Dianne 

Heriot, the Parliamentary Librarian; and officers of the department. I thank the department for providing 

information in advance of these hearings in response to the recommendations in the committee's final report on its 

inquiry into the Department of Parliamentary Services, which was tabled in the previous parliament. The 

information provided has been circulated to the committee. 

Mr Stefanic, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr Stefanic: No, I do not, Chair. 

CHAIR: Dr Heriot, do you have an opening statement? 



Dr Heriot: No, Chair. 

CHAIR: Senator Bernardi. 

Senator BERNARDI: Hello, Mr Stefanic. I know you have missed me the last little while. I have a few 

follow-up questions for you on some of the previous discussions we have had and on some new ones. Firstly, I 

want to turn my mind to an incident report of June last year which I understand involved a PSS officer and 

supervisors. It was on 25 June. Are you familiar with that incident? 

Mr Stefanic: Not from memory, Senator. Perhaps I can ask Mr Cooper. 

Mr Cooper: I think I am aware of the incident you are referring to, Senator. 

Senator BERNARDI: Were any incident reports written regarding this matter? 

Mr Cooper: I would have to take that on notice, Senator. I am certainly aware of the incident, I have certainly 

received emails about the incident and I am certainly aware of discussions that have taken place about that 

incident. 

Senator BERNARDI: Let me get this right, Mr Cooper. I know the first rule of estimates is not to tell a fib, 

the second rule is not to give out any information that you do not want to be known and the third rule is not to 

embarrass the department. But you are telling me you are aware of the incident and you are aware of emails but 

you do not know whether any reports were written in respect of it. You want me to believe that? 

Mr Cooper: Senator, I would like you to believe it because it is the truth. But, also, I can find out in a matter 

of minutes. That was some time ago. There has been a lot of work and a lot of activity underway in security 

branch and, before I categorically say that to you that there was or was not an incident report—I expect there is— 

I will confirm that in the next few minutes. 

Senator BERNARDI: Sure. That is on notice and someone is getting that information in the next couple of 

minutes. Is that right? 

Mr Cooper: Yes. 

Senator BERNARDI: What then is the process if there is an incident between supervisors and PSS officers? 

Surely there must be a protocol about incidents such that reports have to be written? 

Mr Cooper: Yes, there is. If there was an incident it will be documented in some way, I would expect. 

Senator BERNARDI: What is the normal protocol? Who is asked to prepare reports in respect of these 

incidences? 

Mr Cooper: I would imagine it would be the supervisor. Other people involved in an incident would be 

required. If we speak about a security incident more generally, the most appropriate people involved in an 

incident would submit an incident report. 

Senator BERNARDI: So if there were two people involved in an incident both of them would be asked to put 

a report in? 

Mr Cooper: That would normally be the case, yes. 

Senator BERNARDI: What circumstances would there be where both people involved in an incident were 

not expected to provide a report? 

Mr Cooper: I am not sure that I can think of one. 

Senator BERNARDI: What I am interested in is how many reports were submitted and by whom in respect 

of this incident. Are we getting that information now? 

Mr Cooper: I can confirm that incident reports were provided and they were sent to HR. 

Senator BERNARDI: How many incident reports were prepared? 

Mr Cooper: I will have to find that out for you. 

Senator BERNARDI: I am sure they are listening as they are doing it. 

Mr Cooper: I am sure they are, Senator. The other point we should make about this incident is that, if it is 

clearly the one we are both talking about, it is currently under investigation within the department and it may be 

inappropriate to talk about it in more detail. 

Senator BERNARDI: It is not about the detail. I am interested in the reports. I am interested in how many 

reports were done and whether both the supervisor and the PSS officer were asked to make reports. 

Mr Cooper: I expect to have that answer for you very shortly, Senator. 

Senator BERNARDI: They should be able to tell you almost straightaway, shouldn't they? 



Mr Cooper: The first answer came in quite quickly. I expect— 

Senator BERNARDI: What happens when a PSS officer makes a complaint under the Code of Conduct? 

Ms Croke: When a matter is referred to HR as a potential Code of Conduct issue, they would do a preliminary 

look to see if it was, in fact, a Code of Conduct issue. If they thought it looked like there was a case that should be 

investigated further, we would then initiate an investigation into that matter. 

Senator BERNARDI: When is it referred to HR, an incident like this—or in a circumstance where there is a 

problem in relation to the Code of Conduct? 

Ms Croke: It needs to be referred by the area of the department where the matter was initiated. Quite often 

there are discussions between supervisors and their staff, and with managers, that are managed locally—because 

the issue is not considered to be of such a nature that it should be referred to HR as a potential Code of Conduct 

issue. Where there is a case that the manager, or the person who was affected, feels it is necessary it be taken 

further, they can come to HR at any time. HR then makes that initial judgement. 

Senator BERNARDI: I asked about the time frame. If there is a complaint made, how long before it is 

referred to HR? 

Ms Croke: It depends on the nature of the complaint. It depends on to whom it is made. I can only answer 

from the HR point of view. When it gets to HR, we deal with those matters relatively quickly. But there may be 

issues that a manager feels are quite reasonable to cope with within their normal management operations. If they 

think there is an issue between staff, they might feel it is sufficient to sit down and talk to staff about their 

behaviour and what happened and to try to resolve it through a mediation process or a discussion with the staff. It 

depends on the extent of the incident and the issue. It is a judgement for managers to make: whether it is a serious 

issue that needs to be taken further. 

Senator BERNARDI: If a complaint is made, you would expect statements to be taken in a timely manner— 

is that correct? 

Ms Croke: There would normally be statements. Certainly at the point where we get an investigator in, the 

investigator, as part of the process, would talk to all of the individuals concerned. 

Senator BERNARDI: But the investigation into a complaint by managers should be done in a timely manner? 

Ms Croke: I would anticipate that managers would deal with issues within their area fairly quickly, yes. 

Senator BERNARDI: If it were then referred to HR, would that come under you, Ms Croke, or does that 

come under Mr Cooper? 

Ms Croke: That is in my area. 

Senator BERNARDI: How long would it take to get a resolution? 

Ms Croke: It depends what you mean by 'resolution'. I am not trying to be tricky. It also depends on the case. 

It might be that HR would have an initial conversation with the managers and the staff involved, and it might be 

able to be resolved through discussion. There might not be anything that would lead HR to believe there was a 

need for further investigation. If we do go down the route of doing a formal investigation of a code matter, that 

can take some time. 

Senator BERNARDI: I will go back to Mr Cooper. What was your involvement in this incident? 

Mr Cooper: The incident was reported to me. I sought assurance that the incident was being addressed. I am 

aware that there were some differences of opinion and some inconsistencies in views about the incident. I spoke 

personally to the person who made the initial complaint. I applied judgement and my experience to the matter, 

and— 

Senator BERNARDI: How long did it take you to apply your judgement and experience to resolve the 

matter? 

Mr Cooper: I was applying my judgement and experience to the matter from the moment it was brought to 

my attention? 

Senator BERNARDI: How long did it rest with you? 

Mr Cooper: It rested with me for too long at a point, and I have apologised for that. 

Senator BERNARDI: How long is too long? 

Mr Cooper: It was a number of weeks. I will just see if I have the information here. 

Senator BERNARDI: Weeks or months? 

Mr Cooper: Perhaps it is months. 



Senator BERNARDI: You do not think there is a difference? 

Mr Cooper: Of course I think there is a difference. 

Senator BERNARDI: Let us not be tricky. Just tell me the truth. It might come out that I already know the 

answer to the question I am asking. 

Mr Cooper: I am almost offended about— 

Senator BERNARDI: Let us be straight. Let us cut the palaver. How long did it rest with you? 

Mr Cooper: I will just see what I have got here. No, I do not think I have it with me, Senator. I said weeks 

and it may well have been a number of months. 

Senator BERNARDI: Has the matter being resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned? 

Mr Cooper: No, it has not. I made a decision on the matter and that was not accepted by the people involved. 

It has been referred to HR. It is now being investigated. Sorry—I am not sure that 'investigated' is the correct 

term. My decision is being reviewed. 

Senator BERNARDI: So eight months after this it has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties? 

Mr Cooper: Eight months indicates that there are a few moving parts to this. As I said earlier, there were 

differences of opinion as to what occurred. There was certainly a communication breakdown between parties 

early on, where some parties thought that the matter had been put to bed and another party was expecting more to 

be done. It was certainly not the case that eight months went by and nothing happened. As I said, I myself had 

discussions with the person making the complaint at one stage. But ultimately it has taken too long to resolve and 

we need to do better. 

Senator BERNARDI: For any of the people involved in the incident, mostly the supervisor, was there any 

possible or potential change to their employment status? 

Mr Cooper: Yes, Senator. 

Senator BERNARDI: Meaning they were— 

Mr Cooper: The supervisor has since retired. 

Senator BERNARDI: So they were in line for a redundancy? 

Mr Cooper: It was retirement. As for the detail, perhaps yes. 

Senator BERNARDI: As a retirement, would they have been entitled to a redundancy payment? 

Mr Cooper: I think so, but I am not across the detail. I expect yes, Senator. 

Senator BERNARDI: Would that have played into the delay in investigating or coming to a conclusion about 

what transpired? 

Mr Cooper: Absolutely not. That is certainly not my view. 

Senator BERNARDI: Do you know how many people have made statements in respect of this incident yet? 

Mr Cooper: Still checking, Senator. 

Senator BERNARDI: Still checking. When you received notification of this, Mr Cooper, what did you do 

with it for months when it was in your hands? 

Mr Cooper: I was made aware of it verbally by someone in my branch and that day I went and spoke to 

relevant people to ask a question, to make them aware that I was aware that something had occurred. My 

recollection is that there was a long weekend perhaps involved around the timing—there was a delay or there was 

perhaps someone on leave—which led to another part of management not being made aware immediately, that 

very next day. We discussed resolving the matter as quickly as possible. When you have a 24/7 workforce, 

sometimes you have to make a judgement as to whether it is worth getting somebody out of bed to get an answer 

straightaway. But at that stage I was of the view that there was no further action to be taken. It was disappointing. 

We do not condone the action of the person. But I was of the understanding that it was not going any further and 

that the matter had generally been resolved. 

Senator BERNARDI: Mr Cooper, were you ever informed that there had been inordinate and unnecessary 

delays in investigating the matters raised? 


Senator BERNARDI: When was that suggestion put to you? 

Mr Cooper: Senator, I am worried you are going to say that I am not going to answer the question, but I will 

have to take it on notice. 



Senator BERNARDI: If I was to hazard a guess and say it was in September, would that seem reasonable? 

Mr Cooper: My guess is that it was in September, then, Senator. 

Senator BERNARDI: Good guess. When did you respond and get back to the officer? 

Mr Cooper: That was probably the most significant delay. Part of that delay was a misunderstanding on my 

part as to who would respond to the person. When it was brought to my attention that the onus was on me to 

respond, I apologised for the delay in responding. 

Senator BERNARDI: While I am fascinated about where this is going, I am mindful of time. 

Mr Cooper: It was too long, Senator. 

Senator BERNARDI: I could go for days, I tell you. 

Mr Cooper: It was too long and we need to do better. 

Senator BERNARDI: I am in your hands, Chair. Literally I could be here for hours, not on this but on a range 

of other issues. 

CHAIR: Maybe just one or two more questions on this issue and then any others you want to raise quickly. 

Senator BERNARDI: I might put some more questions on notice with regard to this. 

CHAIR: Of course. 

Senator BERNARDI: If you want to come back to me at any time, I am happy— 

CHAIR: We will come back to you on the matters, perhaps. 

Mr Cooper: I am advised there were three official statements made—one by the supervisor, one by the person 

making the complaint and one by the witness. 

Senator BERNARDI: Okay. I am interested in knowing the time lines regarding when those reports were 

made, when those statements were taken, when the two people involved—the supervisor, the employee and a 

witness—were asked to give evidence. 

CHAIR: You will take that on notice, Mr Cooper? 


Senator ABETZ: Who can help me with the arrangements that are currently being entered into with Aussies, 

the coffee shop? 

Mr Stefanic: Perhaps I might start and Ms Croke may be able to fill in the gaps. The Aussies licence had 

expired in 2014. I understand that since that time there has been a process to establish a renewed licence 

arrangement. I would have to start off by saying, I guess, that in relation to that I recognise the value of Aussies as 

an institution at Parliament House and I am aware of recent— 

Senator ABETZ: I am sure that is reassuring when they are facing a 70 per cent rent hike. 

Mr Stefanic: Yes. 

Senator ABETZ: And have been told that they cannot use their name. 

Mr Stefanic: Yes. What I want to do is preface, I guess, to indicate that I understand that is an institution and 

I am happy to answer any amount of questions. I actually welcome the question because a lot of misinformation 

has been put into the public domain. I welcome the opportunity here today to put it all on record because I do not 

think we have been fairly represented in the public domain. 

Senator ABETZ: All right. If I may, let us go through it. Are they allowed to continue to use the name 

Aussies? 

Mr Stefanic: Yes, they are. 

Senator ABETZ: So that was never part of the discussion or negotiation that there was concern by the 

department with the use of the name Aussies? 

Mr Stefanic: No. There is a clause in the draft contract which exists to avoid there being an inappropriate use 

of a business name. If, for example, the Aussies name were to be changed to something that would be deemed 

inappropriate for the environment, it will provide the department and the Presiding Officers the opportunity to 

stop that from occurring. There has been absolutely no intent by the department at any time to stop the name use 

or for some sort of change in its name. 

In terms of the agreement itself— 



Senator ABETZ: How did this even come about then that there was this concern that the department was 

trying to order the stopping of the use of the name Aussies? 

Mr Stefanic: It is an interesting question, Senator, because Mr Calabria has at no point come back to DPS 

asking for an answer to that question. A draft agreement was provided to him before Christmas. He did not 

engage with my department in any way other than to send an offensive email to one of my staff. We had sent him 

a revised draft agreement on 20 February. A draft licence was provided to him along with a copy of the valuer's 

report, which we actually are not obliged to provide, but we have for the sake of transparency. We had advised 

that we would like to start negotiations on 6 March. The operative word is 'negotiations'. It was the provision of a 

draft agreement. It has been alleged in the media that it was 'take it or leave it'. That is not the case at all. We have 

not even got to the stage of representations by Aussies to us. Rather, it has played out in the media. 

Senator ABETZ: With the draft agreement, was there a suggested rental? 


Senator ABETZ: Was the figure, as reported in the media, a 70 per cent increase? 

Mr Stefanic: The figures reported in the media are also not correct. 

Senator ABETZ: What was the increase? 

Mr Stefanic: The current lease arrangement is something just short of $87,000 a year, not including GST. The 

amount—and I stand to be corrected—advised by the independent valuer was something of the order of $150,000 

a year. The reason the amount is so significant is that the proprietor of Aussies has refused to share his turnover 

information. In doing so, it became very hard for the valuer to make an assessment of the true, fair market value 

of the rent. The independent valuer had to make an estimate based on a complex formula to establish a licence fee 

value. He had to make an estimate of the turnover that Aussies achieves in a year. 

Senator ABETZ: So the worse he runs the show, the less the parliament—or the taxpayer—would get. The 

better he runs the show, the more you want to fleece him. Is that the idea? If his figures were very bad and he 

were running at a loss, would you be paying him to be there? 

Mr Stefanic: No. If the estimate of the valuer is incorrect—and it is open to Mr Calabria to challenge the 

assumptions and the valuation, based on whatever his turnover value is—that proposed licence fee would be 

adjusted accordingly. 

Senator ABETZ: Since when has the proprietor of Aussies been required to disclose the turnover? 

Mr Stefanic: Under the current licence he is not required to disclose it. Under the previous licence, held by 

his father, there was a turnover requirement. The turnover was factored into the calculation. I will also put on 

record that the licence fee charged now is of the order of $10,000 less than the licence fee charged under the 

previous arrangement. Under that previous arrangement, turnover was used to help assess the licence fee. The 

point is: if Mr Calabria is prepared to be transparent with the department, we can establish a fair market value that 

is sustainable for his operation and also— 

Senator ABETZ: Why should he have to disclose things which he is not required to? 

Senator XENOPHON: I have a number of questions to ask Mr Stefanic on this in due course, after the break, 

but, further to Senator Abetz's questioning: my understanding of the licensing agreement is that you want to know 

how many takeaway coffees Aussies sells. Is that right? 

Mr Stefanic: No. 

Senator XENOPHON: You do not want to know that? 


Senator XENOPHON: Are you sure about that? 

Ms Croke: Our requirement is to look at turnover, overall turnover. 

Senator XENOPHON: But you want to know how many coffees they sell—and what about a veto over their 

menu? 

Mr Stefanic: No, that is incorrect as well. 

Senator XENOPHON: I will ask the rest of my questions after the break. 

Senator ABETZ: What about key performance indicators for part-time staff? 

Mr Stefanic: There are key performance indicators that apply to the business itself. There are no key 

performance indicators that relate to any employees. That would be ridiculous. 



Senator ABETZ: What are the key performance indicators then? You are telling us what it does not include. 

Let us hear what it does include. 

Ms Croke: Again, they are subject to negotiation through the process. What we have given Mr Calabria at this 

stage is a proposal for discussion. 

CHAIR: I note that we are breaking at 10:30 for 15 minutes. We will return to this matter, but, when we do 

return, Senator McKenzie has questions, on a different matter, that she needs to ask before she leaves for another 

commitment. We will take this answer from Ms Croke then we will go to the break. 

Ms Croke: The licence that is proposed talks about performance reviews. It talks about an annual 

performance review and failure to meet KPIs. 

The President: Perhaps we can come back to you with the exact information after the break? 

CHAIR: Thank you. That is a good suggestion. 

Senator ABETZ: Since it is commercial-in-confidence, you cannot table the proposed document? 

Mr Stefanic: Given the circumstances— 

Ms Croke: I have just found the document. It talks about the key performance indicators. It is in schedule 2 of 

the proposed licence and it refers to 'provision of services at all times during the operating hours.' That is it. 

Senator ABETZ: That might include staff levels—because that is part and parcel, I would have thought. For a 

takeaway shop, the provision of service can only occur with staff. 

Ms Croke: It does not go to the level of staffing. Again, these are the sorts of— 

Senator ABETZ: How can you provide service in a coffee shop without staff? Clearly that has to be part of it, 

I would have thought. 

Mr Stefanic: It is not our concern how many staff the proprietor of Aussies engages. Our concern is at the 

level of the business itself. If Mr Calabria wants to employ one staff or 20, that is a matter for him. 

Senator ABETZ: The DPS is now in direct competition with Aussies in the provision of services, the 

provision of coffee, the provision of meals and the provision of other food and beverages in this building. That is 

correct, is it not? 


Proceedings suspended from 10:31 to 10:45 

CHAIR: We will resume. Senator Bernardi. 

Senator BERNARDI: Thank you, Chair. I want to go back to my questions of Mr Cooper. Ms Croke, have 

you been asked to review this incident and the actions of Mr Cooper? 

Ms Croke: I have, Senator. 

Senator BERNARDI: Is that investigation currently ongoing? 

Ms Croke: I was appointed just over a week ago. I got the paperwork last Wednesday or Thursday. I have not 

actually commenced yet because I was preparing for Senate estimates in a number of things, but I will be 

commencing at the beginning— 

Senator BERNARDI: Who asked you to conduct that review? 

Ms Croke: The secretary appointed me as the reviewer of that matter. 

Senator BERNARDI: Just to confirm: you have been asked to conduct a review in the handling of a matter 

from June last year which resided with Mr Cooper for some months? 

Ms Croke: I have been asked to review the previous decision made in the matter. As I said, I have not— 

Senator BERNARDI: Not the process attached to it? 

Ms Croke: No, just the previous decision and whether that was the right decision. I have been asked to review 

the decision. 

Senator BERNARDI: I want to go to process, just quickly, Mr Stefanic. Surely there has been a breach of the 

regular process if it takes eight months, in which one of your senior officers has it in his remit for a number of 

those months and nothing happens to it after others had previously had it before that? I have got the time lines and 

everything else. It should not be a review about the decision only. It should be a review of the process that has 

happened here, shouldn't it? 



Mr Stefanic: The reason is Ms Croke received, as I received, an email from the aggrieved party. It was 

substantively about the decision, and it was the decision about which I sought a review from Ms Croke. In terms 

of the duration of time, it did not enter my mind that that was something that should be reviewed. 

Senator McKENZIE: I want to follow up some questions that I asked at last estimates around the 

department's performance against the Commonwealth target of three per cent Indigenous employment. Are you 

happy to take those questions, Mr Stefanic? 

Mr Stefanic: Yes. Ms Croke might have the details. We certainly are exceeding our target, Senator. 

Senator McKENZIE: That is great news. Ms Hinchcliffe, you are going to help me? 

Ms Hinchcliffe: I will, Senator. 

Senator McKENZIE: Could you give me an update on the target and how it relates to last year's 

performance? 

Ms Hinchcliffe: We currently have an Indigenous headcount within the department of 11. That is 1.2 per cent 

of our employees. 

Senator McKENZIE: What was it last year? 

Ms Hinchcliffe: As of 30 June 2016 it was, again, 11, which was 1.26 per cent. For 30 June 2015 it was nine, 

which was 1.3 per cent. 

Senator McKENZIE: So there has been no increase towards the target of three per cent across the department 

since 30 June last year. You had 11 last year. You have 11 now. That is 1.2 per cent. How long do you think it 

will take you to reach the three per cent target? 

Ms Hinchcliffe: We have a number of initiatives underway at the moment in the area of Indigenous 

employment within the department. 

Senator McKENZIE: Such as what? 

Ms Hinchcliffe: We have recently joined the Indigenous Australian Government Development Program, a 

graduate program for Indigenous employees. We had been hopeful of receiving a number of graduates under that 

program. We have received one graduate. That graduate commenced on 16 September 2016 and will be with us 

for the duration of the graduate program, which runs for 15 months. We have also just commenced, with the other 

parliamentary departments, a RAP initiative—an Indigenous employment network. That had its first meeting this 

year. We see that as being a positive initiative to provide support to Indigenous employees across the 

parliamentary service, as well as to help retain Indigenous employees as they come to each of the parliamentary 

departments. 

Senator McKENZIE: How long has this initiative been in place? 

Ms Hinchcliffe: The Indigenous employee network? It had its first meeting on 2 February 2017. 

Senator McKENZIE: When was the target of three per cent set? 

Ms Hinchcliffe: I would have to take that on notice. 

Senator McKENZIE: I think it was a while ago—but the departments have all just got together this February 

for the first time? 

Ms Hinchcliffe: The parliamentary departments have a RAP champion group. One of the initiatives of our 

RAP champion group was to set up the Indigenous employee network. We had previously had discussions with 

the Attorney-General's Department's Indigenous employee network to see how they had established theirs. As part 

of our process we have now established one here. 

Senator McKENZIE: Can you give me a breakdown of those 11 employees? What levels are they at within 

the Public Service? 

Ms Hinchcliffe: I will need to take that on notice. 

Mr Stefanic: To clarify: I thought heard the word 'procurement' earlier—not 'recruitment'. That is why I said 

we had exceeded our target. I apologise. 

Senator McKENZIE: I am getting to procurement, so it will not be in vain. Nobody here from the department 

has a list of the 11 Indigenous employees? There is a senator who regularly asks you questions on this, but you do 

not have a breakdown of the levels of those 11 individuals? 

Ms Hinchcliffe: I do not have that with me. I will have to take that on notice. 

Senator McKENZIE: When do you think you could get that information to me? Can someone back in the 

office print that off? 



Ms Hinchcliffe: I am not sure when I can get that to you, but we will work on it. If we are able to get that to 

you while we are still here, we will. If not, I will take it on notice. 

Senator McKENZIE: I find it incredible that we have 11 people in one of the flagship programs of this 

government within the Public Service but that we cannot be told where the 11 people are within your 

organisation. If they are so important that we are having interdepartmental committee meetings, how can we not 

know what level they are at, and how can it take more than two hours to get that piece of information to this 

room? I find that quite staggering, Mr Stefanic. 

Mr Stefanic: We will certainly have it for next time. 

Senator McKENZIE: 'Next time'? Which next time? 

Mr Stefanic: We will be prepared for your question the next time you ask it, but we will— 

Senator McKENZIE: I would like to know the level of the employees. I cannot imagine, Mr Stefanic, that it 

would be difficult to get that. You should know them by name if you have a program in place to support their 

ongoing employment—which you have just told me you do. You should know them by name, let alone having a 

document somewhere that you could just print off with their levels. 

Ms Croke: I am sure somebody in our HR area is watching this right now and trying to get that information as 

fast as they can. 

Senator McKENZIE: Thank you! That is the answer I was looking for. That is fabulous. Thank you, Ms 

Croke and HR. I am looking forward to getting that piece of information. I will have a couple of questions once 

we do get that information. I will now move to procurement. We have exceeded expectations. That is good news. 

Do you want to talk us through how DPS performed under the Indigenous procurement policy? 

Mr Stefanic: Perhaps we can throw that across to Ms Croke. 

Ms Croke: I might get Mr Creagh to answer that. 

Mr Creagh: We have exceeded the number of contracts that DPS had. As to the target, we entered into 15 

contracts with 13 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses for a total value of $1,410,395, GST inclusive. 

That was for the 2015-16 financial year. I do not have the figures for this financial year with me at the moment, 

but I am sure my procurement guys will be able to get it to me very shortly. 

I guess the other thing that probably identifies that we did exceed our target for the year is that we are going to 

look for further initiatives that we can do, particularly in the building space and in the subcontractor space, where 

there is a fair bit of scope for accessing Indigenous businesses. 

At the moment our procurement practices require people who are going to procure services to check Supply 

Nation before they go out to tender. We are looking at ways to potentially modify our requests for tenders to, at 

the very least, ask for best efforts on subcontractors for Indigenous businesses. We are also looking at our training 

across the department to ensure that people understand both the requirements under the Indigenous procurement 

policy and also how we can help business areas to achieve their goals. 

Senator McKENZIE: In breaking down those 15 contracts, do you want to quickly run through which 

sections of DPS? 

Mr Creagh: I will have to get my procurement guys to double-check that for us, but I know that the areas 

were in the artwork space and in the construction space as well. 

Senator McKENZIE: The idea of this policy is that it extends to all activities within the department? 

Mr Creagh: Correct. 

Senator McKENZIE: The Indigenous procurement policy applies to the catering arrangements? 

Mr Creagh: It should, yes. 

Senator McKENZIE: Yes, it should. How many Indigenous businesses have won catering contracts from 

DPS? 

Mr Creagh: I will have to take that on notice. 

Senator McKENZIE: Hopefully the procurement guys will be as forthcoming as the HR guys. Do you 

manage the gift shop? 

Mr Creagh: No, that is not under my responsibility. 

Ms Croke: That is within my area and it fits into the Parliamentary Experience Branch. 

Senator McKENZIE: So we manage it in-house? 



Ms Croke: Yes, we do. 

Senator McKENZIE: How many contracts have been awarded to Indigenous businesses in relation to the gift 

shop? 

Ms Croke: I would need to take that on notice to get the exact number. We certainly do have a fairly good 

representation there of items, as you would be aware, but I will take that on notice. 

Senator McKENZIE: Thank you so much. I will have some further questions once we get that data today. 

Ms Croke: I am not sure if we can get that for you today, but we will do our best. 

Senator McKENZIE: Thank you. 

CHAIR: We will now return to the Aussies matter and any senators who have questions on that. After that we 

will move to opposition senators, and I thank them for their patience so far this morning. 

Senator ABETZ: Can I ask you, Mr Stefanic, whether this sounds familiar? 'The licensee must provide to the 

licensor the following information and documents: (a) monthly reports showing the gross sales and profits made 

by the licensee from providing the services set out using the following categories: (i) coffee—takeaway versus 

dine in'. Would you like to reconsider the answer you provided to us before the break? 

Senator XENOPHON: It was a question I asked you, Mr Stefanic. Do you remember it? 

Mr Stefanic: Yes, Senator. The operative statement there is 'gross sales and profits'. Those categories are a 

means which should be used for calculating the turnover. We are not interested in knowing how many cups of 

coffee are being sold. 

Senator XENOPHON: But you work it out from the gross sales. 

Senator ABETZ: Why would you need to break it up if you were only interested in the gross sales? Please, 

Mr Stefanic, why would you need to break it up? Gross sales is gross sales. 

Mr Stefanic: The draft agreement has only been provided to Mr Calabria before Christmas. He has had ample 

opportunity to feed back to us on that draft agreement. He then received a further draft agreement on 20 February 

with two weeks in which he could seek advice and make representations to us. If there is any element of this draft 

agreement he does not like he could come back to us. 

Senator XENOPHON: You have got all the bargaining power. 

Mr Stefanic: But he has made no attempt whatsoever to do that, rather than— 

Senator ABETZ: Mr Stefanic, that is all very good, but you told us that this was not required. Black on white, 

page 13, this is a requirement, is it not? 

Mr Stefanic: That is your interpretation, Senator. I have mine based on legal advice. 

Senator ABETZ: Excuse me. I would have thought it would be anybody's interpretation. Can I just take you 

through it again. 'The licensee must'—no option—'provide to the licensor the following information and 

documents: (a) monthly reports showing the gross sales and profits made by the licensee from providing the 

services set out using the following categories: (i) coffee …' There is no option. 

Senator XENOPHON: Takeaway versus dining. 

Senator ABETZ: And, of course, takeaway versus dining. But there is no option there. He must provide it— 

similarly with food sales, even down to dry-cleaning, where you do not even compete with him. 

Mr Stefanic: Senator, I will repeat: if there is any element of this draft agreement Mr Calabria does not like 

he can negotiate with us. 

Senator ABETZ: No, no, no. I am sorry. Why did you give us— 

CHAIR: Senator Abetz, please allow the witness to answer the question. 

Mr Stefanic: If he is concerned with any elements of that, it is subject to negotiation and he has been given 

ample opportunity to do that. There is no take it or leave it here. He can discuss it with us. He has made no 

attempt other than, very apparently, making representations to senators and also to the media. 

Senator XENOPHON: Do you have a problem with that? You do, don't you? 

Mr Stefanic: Do most commercial agreements get negotiated using a Senate committee, I guess? That is the 

question I have in my mind. 

Senator ABETZ: Most commercial negotiations are not with a direct competitor such as the Department of 

Parliamentary Services. Let me just take you to another aspect of this bizarre draft. I will find it in due course. I 

think it was about the business plan. Here we go: '11.3 The licensor may give a notice to the licensee requiring the 



licensee to provide a business plan to the licensor.' Here you are in direct competition with Aussies and you are 

requiring the provision of his business plan to you. That would be exceedingly helpful if you were in direct 

competition. Are you providing your business plan to Aussies, how you are going to try to undercut him and get 

more of this business? 

Mr Stefanic: The suggestion that we are trying to undercut Aussies is not correct. The operation— 

Senator ABETZ: All right. Are you in competition with Aussies? 

Mr Stefanic: Not directly, Senator. We run a number of operations. We run an events business. We run the 

staff dining room. We run a coffee cart. We run the Queen's Terrace Cafe. 

Senator ABETZ: Takeaway coffees, snacks, food, beverages? 

Mr Stefanic: That is right. The net value of that operation is far higher. To suggest that we would be running 

down Aussies to enhance our own operation is not— 

Senator ABETZ: Are you in direct competition with that which Aussies provides? We know that Aussies 

does not provide catering in the Great Hall, but for that which Aussies does provide, especially coffee and food 

sales, you are in direct competition. 

Mr Stefanic: The majority of DPS's revenue from catering is generated through the events business, Senator. 

Senator ABETZ: Yes, but that avoids the question I am asking. Are you in direct competition with Aussies in 

the area of coffee and food sales and other beverages, the first three items on your list which says he must provide 

information on a monthly basis? 

Mr Stefanic: We are in competition with respect to sales of coffee and wherever else there is a similar 

product. 

Senator ABETZ: Thank you—and food and beverages. 

Mr Stefanic: What I will say, though, is that the Presiding Officers are the sign-off on the licence itself, so 

there are checks and balances along the way. It is not DPS that is solely making these decisions. We seek 

independent advice. We expect that Mr Calabria would seek independent advice as well and come back to us and 

discuss any areas of concern he has in the agreement. 

Senator ABETZ: So what is your need to know his business plan? 

Ms Croke: Senator, can I just add to that. DPS has a responsibility, in managing all of the licence 

arrangements we manage, to make sure we are putting services into the parliament that meet the needs of the 

senators and members and the occupants of parliament. So we were asked—and it was through an ANAO report, 

as well—to do a full retail strategy of what services were needed. Part of that is, when we do put in place a 

licence agreement, we need to have some indication of the services that have been provided and whether they are 

effective in meeting the needs of the people in the building. Prior to DPS undertaking the catering and event 

service and the provision of food that we are currently doing in the areas that the secretary mentioned, that was 

managed by an outsourced contractor. Those services have been in place for years, in a coffee cart, in the staff 

dining room; that competition has been there for years. The only thing that has changed is that, because of 

concerns about the level of that service and the quality of the food that was provided, DPS was asked to take over 

the running of those arrangements. 

Senator ABETZ: And of course that is where you are hopelessly conflicted. Hopelessly conflicted in relation 

to this matter with Aussies. Can I take you back to the evidence provided previously about the current owner's 

father. When did the current owner's father have the business? 

Ms Croke: He had the business prior to the current Mr Calabria. I am not sure how far back it goes. 

Senator ABETZ: 2001 was when the son took over—16 years ago. So launching back into ancient history as 

to what the agreement may have been, I think in 1996, when the current owner's father took it is, I must say, not 

very helpful in our discussions today and especially in the circumstances where all we are talking about is a 

renewal of, I think, an enterprise about which I would suspect the most left-wing and the most right-wing of 

parliamentarians, public servants et cetera would be of the view provides a pretty good and efficient service. So I 

am just wondering why all these new factors have been included. You reach back to 1996 when it first started, 

and here we are in 2017. 

Mr Stefanic: I think where it is relevant is that the licence held by Aussies has not been subject to market 

testing in 25 years. My department has been criticised by the ANAO for not seeking to maximise a return to the 

Commonwealth—hence its recommendations to undertake a retail strategy. I do not know where to go, then. Do 

we just leave the existing licence in place forever? 



Senator ABETZ: That comparison from the valuer, was that with Coffee Club in Civic? 

Mr Stefanic: No, we used an independent retail valuer that made an assessment based on other Canberra 

businesses. 

Senator ABETZ: Yes, including Coffee Club in Civic. Is that correct or not? 

Mr Stefanic: It may well be the case. 

Senator ABETZ: Yes, a seven-day operation in a shopping centre, where your business is usually pretty 

stable, whereas here half the time you are flat out and the other time it is dead as, and there are very long periods 

of— 

Mr Stefanic: My understanding is that the independent valuer took into account both sitting day and nonsitting 

day periods to achieve what was referred to as a blended rate. So it took into account the highs and the 

lows in arriving at a figure. 

CHAIR: Senator Abetz, given the time we might move the call to other senators who have questions on this 

matter. 

Senator ABETZ: All right. One quick one, if I may. 

CHAIR: Sure. 

Senator ABETZ: Is DPS now seeking to run a profit out of all of its coffee carts in Queen's Terrace as well? 

Mr Stefanic: Sorry, Senator, would you repeat the question? 

Senator ABETZ: Queen's Terrace, I am sorry—the coffee shop there. 

Mr Stefanic: Sorry, could you repeat the question? 

Senator ABETZ: Is DPS seeking a profit from the spaces that it undoubtedly leases to itself from the coffee 

carts and the Queen's Terrace restaurant cafeteria? 

Mr Stefanic: Licences are only relevant where there is a non-parliamentary user. So, for example, licences 

apply to all the media who occupy space in Parliament House. They apply to Australia Post, Capital Hair, the 

child care centre, travel— 

Senator ABETZ: But not to you, who are running in direct competition with Aussies. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Abetz. I think we will move to Senator Xenophon. 

Senator ABETZ: Thank you, Chair. 

Senator XENOPHON: I just want to follow on very quickly, if I may, Mr Stefanic. Firstly, before the break 

you said that there did not need to be information on coffee takeaway versus dine-in. Do you now acknowledge 

that you were wrong in that answer? 

Mr Stefanic: I have indicated to you what my interpretation of that provision is, acknowledging we have a 

difference in interpretation of that provision. If that is your view then I will accede, but the way I read that 

provision is that the information that my department is interested in is the gross sales and profits. 

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, but in effect this clause, 9.11, wants details of takeaway versus dine-in coffee, 

takeaway versus dine-in food sales, other beverages, groceries, dry-cleaning, newspapers, magazines and 

periodicals, and all other items and services sold, and an annual audit report of that. That is very intrusive for a 

small business, is it not? 

Mr Stefanic: As I repeated earlier, Mr Calabria has been given the opportunity to seek advice and come back 

to us on that. 

Senator XENOPHON: We are going to run out of time shortly, but it seems to me that you did say that you 

seemed to have some discomfort or displeasure that this matter is now being ventilated in the context of an 

estimates hearing. Is that right? 

Mr Stefanic: It is less than desirable. 

Senator XENOPHON: It is less than desirable, but you can assure us now that there will not be any negative 

repercussions against Mr Calabria for actually going to members of parliament to seek advice and assistance in 

relation to this? 

Mr Stefanic: I am sure, if there were to be, it would be scrutinised very heavily. 

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, it is an issue of privilege. Mr President, because the department is a competitor 

given that it has now taken over catering, the area previously run by IHG, what does that mean from your point of 

view? Obviously you cannot speak for the Speaker, but presumably you, along with the Speaker, have the final 



sign-off on this. Do you have any concerns with what may be seen to be, on the face of it, an inherent conflict of 

interest in DPS negotiating, in effect, with a direct competitor? 

The President: No, I do not. In particular, the information that DPS may or may not garner from that 

particular licensee would be kept in confidence. It cannot be used in a way that would give a competitive 

advantage. In essence, all the Speaker and I ask of DPS is, if they possibly can, to break even in relation to the 

costs to the Commonwealth in running the events and the catering inside Parliament House. Aussies is an 

institution that will continue, I am sure, in its fine tradition of serving occupants of this building, and there is no 

suggestion that we want to compete in any way, shape or form. 

Senator XENOPHON: But they are competitors, Mr President. 

The President: Just a moment. It is a unique business. Also, the Speaker and I have to take into account 

recommendation No. 5 of the 24th report of 2014-15 of the Australian National Audit Office, which clearly 

states—and I will read it into the record because I think it is very important in light of some of the questions: 

To strengthen the management of retail licences, the ANAO recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services 

develops a retail strategy and operational plan that clarifies priorities for revenue generating opportunities and establishes a 

clear basis for monitoring retailer performance 

The Speaker and I, and the previous Speaker, have inherited a legacy issue of contracts not being properly 

developed for many, many years. We have embarked on a program of tidying this whole process up so every 

single occupant in the building who leases space from us is treated exactly the same, in a fair and equitable 

manner. I will also stress that the document that you have been quoting from (a) is a draft document and (b) has 

not been responded to by the licensee, or the proposed licensee. Also, the proposed licensee has had a very 

generous offer of continuing in the current arrangements without competition, without competitive tender, until 

2019. That is exceptionally fair over a long period of time, so I dismiss the arguments that the operator is 

currently being treated poorly. The Speaker and I, in fact, have gone out of our way to ensure that this fairness has 

stayed within the process until a competitive basis starts in 2019, rather than now. 

Senator XENOPHON: In today's Australian Financial Review, Joe Aston reports that Kate Carnell, the small 

business ombudsman, states that this 'appeared to be an "extremely unfair" licence agreement that she argued 

would never be tolerated in the private sector'. She said: 

While they're not bound to do so, I call on all government departments to lead by example and ensure their contractual 

agreements with small businesses aren't at odds with legislation outlawing unfair 'take it or leave it' contract terms. 

The President: I have read that report in the media and my understanding is that it was a one-sided view 

presented to the Ombudsman and that the other point of view has been put since that report. That is my 

understanding and the secretary may wish to clarify. 

Senator XENOPHON: Just two more questions, if I may. In relation to laws in terms of substantial misuse of 

market power is there and exemption that applies? I should know this but I do not. Are competition laws 

applicable in this building to the decisions made by the department or not, or is there an exemption? 

The President: I assume they would be, but, even if they are not, the spirit in any way to conduct business 

would be to the fair, and that is exactly what the Speaker and I would insist upon—total fairness. In fact I think 

we have demonstrated above and beyond fairness. 

Senator XENOPHON: Can we go, finally, to clause 15 of the draft agreement under 'Business name' which 

states: 'The licensee must not', under point (1), 'use a business name', or (2), 'include a word or phrase in their 

business name if notified by the licence or presiding officers that they must not use that business name or include 

that word or phrase in their business name.' Does that mean that if there is a sign, the department would be in a 

position to say, 'You can no longer call it Aussies,' because, on the plain reading of it, that seems to me to be what 

it says? 

Mr Stefanic: Senator, I advised what the intent of that provision was. If Mr Calabria wants that clarified I 

would be more than happy to do so. 

Senator XENOPHON: Can you clarify it for this committee? Can he continue using the name Aussies? 

Mr Stefanic: Yes, he can. We would not seek to remove or in any way interfere with his right to use the name 

Aussies. 

Senator XENOPHON: Because it is a registered business name. 

Mr Stefanic: Well, I am not sure if it is actually. 

Senator XENOPHON: I believe it is. Finally where are we up to with negotiations? Are you still negotiating 

with them? 



Mr Stefanic: When Mr Calabria was given a copy of the licence agreement on 20 February he was invited to 

meet on 5 March after he had the opportunity to seek advice. So from where I sit we have only just begun 

negotiations on this matter. 

Senator XENOPHON: Thank you, Chair. 

Ms Croke: I just wanted to clarify something that was said earlier. When Senator Abetz was asking questions 

about when the current licensee had the licence as opposed to his father, we actually have a licence which 

indicates, we understand, it was with the father and it was dated November 2003. So it was more recent than 

Senator Abetz suggested. 

CHAIR: Thank you. Are there any further questions on the Aussies matter before we move? Mr Stefanic, you 

are waiting for a call? 

Mr Stefanic: Chair, could I please clarify something I said earlier. I mentioned the licence expired in 2014. In 

fact it was 31 March 2015. 

CHAIR: Thank you. 

Senator WONG: Could I just put this on the record. I know we are well beyond the timeframe for questioning 

for not only this department but also the Parliamentary Service Commissioner. We will try, from the opposition's 

perspective, to constrain our questioning because we do want to get to Prime Minister and Cabinet. We think that 

is a pretty important area. In the spirit of cooperation I hope our colleagues can do the same. I want to very 

quickly be clear: you commissioned a food strategy report and I think $55,000 was the cost of that? 

Ms Croke: It was in that vicinity. I can recheck. I have not got those amounts but it was in that vicinity. 

Mr Stefanic: The figure was about $55,000. 

Senator WONG: I just said that. I said was it about $55,000. Yes, okay. Is it correct to say that that said, 

'Don't bring in-house a couple of outlets including Queens Terrace and coffee cart'. Is that right? 

Mr Stefanic: There was a range of recommendations that the report made about optional models and that was 

one of them. 

Senator WONG: That was one of them. As you are entitled to do, you made a decision, subject to being able 

to actually explain why, that is counter to the report you have commissioned in that aspect. Is that correct? 

Mr Stefanic: In that aspect, yes. 

Senator WONG: In that aspect the report says, inter-alia, 'Don't bring these two outlets in-house,' and you 

have done so. 

Mr Stefanic: Correct. Senator, if I can give you a brief explanation. 

Senator WONG: As long as it is really brief. 

Mr Stefanic: That consultancy occurred before I came on board. Had I been here, I would have had certain 

viewpoints that I would have fed into that. One would have been that I did not think the consultants appropriately 

understood the parliamentary environment. Having come from running a catering operation at the New South 

Wales parliament, I was confident, given we have a market here which is effectively captive, that we could 

provide a service with more variety and with better value to the parliament. 

Senator WONG: We can explore that later, or people will work that out. Of the people who were previously 

employed in food services in the building, how many of those were transferred to the in-house operation, and how 

many were let go? You might want to take some of that on notice, but can I just have the aggregate figures? 

Mr Stefanic: The operation we are running is similar in size to the IHG operation. We have 38 staff. All other 

staff are engaged through a labour hire arrangement. 

Senator WONG: That is not quite my question. 

Mr Stefanic: I am just giving you the broader picture. Ms Croke will fill in the details. 

Ms Croke: Of the staff who had been recruited by DPS as of last week, 14 were working for, and were 

employed by, IHG at the time their contract was ending. There would of course be further people who were 

employed through the various labour hire companies that IHG used and that we are also using. There may be 

some additional numbers there, but I do not have precise details about those. 

Senator WONG: I am trying to work out how many people left and how many were, essentially, transferred 

to the new employer. 

Ms Croke: We have recruited 14. 

Senator WONG: Out of? 



Ms Croke: We do not have an exact number. I am not sure what the total number of IHG people employed in 

the building was. I am not sure we have that data, but I can certainly see if we have something that would give us 

an approximation. 

Senator WONG: Surely you must have had some of that data. The contract was with you. 

Mr Stefanic: Out of the 14, we would have to establish which ones were permanent employees of IHG and 

which ones were casual and so on. 

Senator WONG: I do not mind if you add all that detail. But I think you referred to 38. Is that right? Would 

that mean, subject to you adding detail, that, of the 38 positions, approximately 14 came over to you and the 

remainder moved on? 

Ms Croke: Yes. 

Mr Stefanic: Before the transition was completed, IHG had moved a number of their staff to their other 

businesses. Some other staff, I know, had applied for roles elsewhere. 

Senator WONG: How do you know that? They have told you that? 


Senator WONG: Presumably that means they have told you, of that cohort, how many were available to you 

and how many had moved on elsewhere? 

Ms Croke: It was not quite like that. We conducted a full merit process for each role we were looking to fill, 

and IHG made sure their staff were aware of those processes. Their staff applied. Some of them got roles; some 

did not. 

Senator WONG: How many applied? 

Ms Croke: I would need to take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Do you understand what I am asking? 

Ms Croke: I do. 

Senator WONG: I am just trying to get a sense of the total cohort, subject to the various qualifications the 

Secretary has outlined, and, of those, how many then got jobs. 

Ms Croke: Fourteen got jobs, but I can take on notice how many over and above that applied. 

Senator WONG: I will move off catering and go to security. On the last occasion, I was asking about 

additional funding and how many additional security personnel—FTEs—would be required as a result of security 

works. In question on notice No. 11 you told me that the six additional security points—that is the four internal 

ministerial wing entrances and the two points east and west of the external ministerial guardhouse—would require 

18 positions in a 24-hour period, and 4½ officers on top of that to provide mandatory breaks for those staff. 

Compared to 12 months ago and two years ago, the numbers have gone from 157 to 165 and then to 174. Those 

are the average numbers on a sitting day. What is the current number of Parliamentary Security Service staff? 

Have you recruited sufficient staff to fill the 18 plus 4½ positions you gave me evidence about? 

Mr Cooper: We continue to recruit. In the last 12 months we have recruited 50 full-time permanent staff, 

three permanent part-time staff and five casuals. 

Senator WONG: Fifty full-time? 

Mr Cooper: Fifty full-time, three permanent part-time and five casuals. There are five more starting today, 

Senator, on a training course. However, of the 50 full-time permanent, I wish to point out that 15 had a nonongoing 

contract or a casual contract. 

Senator WONG: Fifteen? 

Mr Cooper: Fifteen of those 50 have moved over to full-time permanent. 

Senator WONG: Sorry, that is quite confusing. 

Mr Cooper: I am sorry. We have recruited through three recruitment rounds in the last 12 months a total of 58 

staff. Fifty of those are full-time permanent, three are part-time and five are casuals. But in that first cohort of 50 

full-time permanents 15 were already working here in another security capacity. 

Senator WONG: Okay. On the last occasion or in the budget papers it is clear that in the $100 million 

security works budget from 2014-15 there was a discussion of about $3 million per annum being included as 

operational funding for additional staff. Is that correct? 



Mr Cooper: I would have to ask the CFO. That was before my time. What I can say is that we have funding 

for a further 36 security officers and we are recruiting to fill those. 

Senator WONG: Okay. We are jumping around. There was $100 million in the security works budget from 

2014-15 in which there was some operational funding included for additional staff. It is my recollection, and I 

might be wrong, that there was $3 million per annum additional staffing. Is that not right? 

Mr Creagh: The departmental funding that the department received was a net figure. It included both funding 

that we got for the additional FTE as well as funding for a number of other operational— 

Senator WONG: What was the funding for the additional FTE? 

Mr Creagh: I will have to double-check that and get the breakdown, because it is offset against the funding 

that moved to the AFP to take care of external security. The funding that we got was around about $2.2 million, 

and it ended up being $2.6 million in 2017-18. 

Senator WONG: It was $2.6 million in 2017-18, so additional departmental funding for FTE— 


Senator WONG: which is allocated to the security personnel? 


Senator WONG: So this is a particular line item for that section? 


Senator WONG: Thank you. How much of that is being expended? How many positions does $2.6 million 

fund? 

Mr Creagh: Can I please clarify: $2.6 million is not what we got allocated for staffing. That is the net— 

Senator WONG: I am sorry. I thought we just agreed that was FTE and it was about this area. 

Mr Creagh: I apologise. That was incorrect. The net funding that the department received, which included 

funds that were transferred to the AFP, was $2.6 million. 

Senator WONG: We just had that evidence. 

Mr Creagh: Because I need to get information on the specific breakdown of that net figure, which I have just 

asked for, I will have to get a figure for you for the salaries of the staff. 

Senator WONG: No, I did not ask about salaries. I am going to ask about salaries; I will come to that. I am 

actually simply asking: how much is allocated for the recruitment of additional security staff? I understand it is a 

net figure. I have been told now that $2.6 million is the relevant figure in 2017-18. Is that right? Then we can 

have a discussion about how you are choosing to break that up as per levels. I just want to know how much. 

Mr Creagh: I will have to get that figure because the figure for staff is captured within that $2.6 million. The 

$2.6 million includes funding for a range of things, including an offset of the money that went to FTE. 

Senator WONG: No, you told me already that the $2.6 million is the net figure. 


Senator WONG: Then the offset is dealt with. We do not need to talk about the offset anymore. What does 

the $2.6 million relate to? 

Mr Creagh: It relates to staffing that we got and the FTE that we were allocated as well as to a range of other 

operationals, like supplier expenses that were required under the measure. Senator, I will have to take it on notice 

and ask my team to look into the specifics. 

Senator WONG: How long will that take? 

Mr Creagh: I am not sure. I will have to take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Can you find out how long that will take? I also want to know what levels staff are at. Of 

the 50, how many are at PSL 1, how many at PSL 2 and how many at PSL 3? Come on, guys, you have employed 

50 new staff. I am just asking about the numbers in each classification. 

Mr Cooper: They would be APS 1 and APS 2. 

Senator WONG: None at APS 3? 

Mr Cooper: No. 

Senator WONG: Why is that? 

Mr Cooper: Because that is not where our vacancies are. 



Senator WONG: You have chosen to set those levels. These are new positions, are they not? 

Mr Cooper: But the function they are undertaking, the service that they provide, is not new. 

Senator WONG: What is an APS 3? 

Mr Cooper: An APS 3 can be someone who has been trained with additional skills, such as in security 

communications─operating some of our electronic security and so forth. 

Senator WONG: It is a higher level of security skills. Is that right, would you agree with that? 

Mr Cooper: I would agree that it is additional skills, yes. I do not want to be derogatory towards people who 

are not APS 3s. They will do a good job. 

Senator WONG: I am not suggesting they will not, but I am asking what job you are asking them to do. Did 

you describe the APS 1 and APS 2 jobs as admin? 


Senator WONG: Administrative jobs? 


Senator WONG: What are people at the APS 1 and APS 2 level then? 

Mr Cooper: They are the people that we see manning points and doing security inspections walking through 

the building─and first aid. 

Senator WONG: What security qualifications are they required to have? 

Mr Cooper: They undergo an in-house security training program and they have to pass that training to 

successfully be appointed to the job, and we have ongoing refresher training. 

Senator WONG: In your initial new policy proposal, when you put in your bid for funding, what was the 

configuration of staffing that underpinned the costing—how many APS 1s, how many APS 2s and how many 

APS 3s? If it has changed since 2010, can you tell me how? If it has changed, I would like to know the basis for 

those changes. 

Mr Creagh: I can take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Mr Cooper, employing more people at the lower levels, the lower skill levels—how would 

you like me to describe it: 'lower classification levels'? 


Senator WONG: You do not have any concerns about employing people at those lower classification levels 

rather than employing APS 3s? 

Mr Cooper: I do not have any particular concerns. Part of the reason is that, as I mentioned the last time we 

met, we have a functional review of security underway, and that may change the nature of our staffing. There is 

no hidden agenda there, but that is an opportunity for us to determine whether we have the right people in the 

right places at the right levels. 

Senator WONG: Mr Stefanic, I think on the last occasion you told me you were funded for an additional 32 

full-time equivalents in relation to the capital works. That was departmental funding for additional personnel 

associated with the new requirements resulting from the capital works that included the guardhouse in the 

ministerial wing, checkpoints et cetera. Do you remember that evidence? 

Mr Stefanic: No, I do not. 

Senator WONG: It is on page 32 of the Hansard. I am telling you the truth. It reads: 

Senator Wong: Mr President, when the fairly significant amounts of money were spent on the capital works to give the 

ministers a guard house externally and to include four checkpoints in the ministerial wing, was the need for additional 

recurrent funding for staffing to staff those sought and obtained? 

The President: Yes, it has been. 

… … … 

Mr Stefanic : It is my understanding that we are funded for an additional 32 full-time equivalents. 

What I want to know is: do you have the 32 for those six checkpoints, and are they included in the 50? 

Mr Stefanic: I do not have that information in front of me. I will have to take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Can we just try and get on notice, then, some clarity around additional security staff? I have 

tried it at a couple of estimates now. Is that okay? 




Senator WONG: Thank you. Can I talk to you about being short on shifts. Mr Cooper, you took this on notice 

last time. I asked you how many times the department has not been able to fill all shifts. I understand that this is 

across this building and external to the building, all of the points—is that the best way to describe them? 


Senator WONG: Which have to be staffed to the number of people that is the optimal number of people. I 

asked how many times you cannot fill those. Your answer was—and I actually appreciate your transparency 

around this—the usual thing, which is, 'It would take us too long to tell you, Senator.' But you did say you had 

experienced daily instances where operational demand had exceeded available resourcing. 

Mr Cooper: That is correct. 

Senator WONG: That is a very concerning statement. 

Mr Cooper: Perhaps I could put some context around it. 

Senator WONG: I am not actually critical of you for telling me that; I am pleased you told me that. But it is a 

concerning statement. 

Mr Cooper: The first thing I would like to say is that recruitment, increasing our numbers in security, has 

been the single biggest priority for me since I came on board here last April. I have already put on record the 

success we are having in recruiting. I think two more recruitment rounds, at the way we have been going, should 

almost see us full. We need to ensure that, as we go forward with recruiting, we are addressing our attrition rate 

and so forth. When we talk about, on a daily basis, security points or security not having the full complement, 

putting aside for a moment the fact that there is always a little bit of fat in any roster, some of these are shifts 

where we have not been able to have someone manage a full shift or we have had to extend a shift because of 

ongoing activity in the House and that has prevented someone from coming to work the next day at the scheduled 

time because perhaps that would breach our 10-hour rule, that they need a 10-hour break. 

But, more importantly, I would like to put on record that security has not been compromised because of our 

staffing levels, and that is because our critical points are a priority for us. We manage our vacancies through a 

number of means. One of them is a pool of, at the moment, approximately 27 casuals that fill in over time. As I 

said at our last gathering, the risk management is done in consultation with the AFP because of our integrated 

security model. 

Senator WONG: Do you receive the daily staffing sheet high-level multi-summary? 

Mr Cooper: I do not receive it. It is available to me, but I do not look at it frequently. I am aware of our 

challenges, and I am aware of the mitigation strategies we have in place to manage them. 

Senator WONG: I have received some of these. For example—I have just pulled one out—on Thursday, 20 

October 2016, there are many open shifts. At point 1, at the reps entry, reps gallery, Senate entry. You say there is 

a bit of fat. Are you doing rosters that have a lot of fat in them? 

Mr Cooper: No, I was just making the observation that any good rostering system would allow for small 

contingency. But I did put that aside in my response. 

Senator WONG: In the reps gallery estimates—I do not know what that means—I have got eight open shifts. 

In fact, there are more open shifts than allocated staff. It just seems extraordinary, that is all. 

Mr Cooper: We are managing it, and we are managing it, as I say, to a point where we have not had a security 

compromise because of staffing issues. 

Senator WONG: You cannot say that it does not matter that we are not putting people on when we are 

supposed to have people there, because we have not had a security compromise. That is not an answer, is it? 

Mr Cooper: Perhaps it is not. 

Senator WONG: We do things so we do not have a compromise. 

Mr Cooper: That is right. Another element of what you have in front of you is that it may be—and I do not 

know—that where we have gaps we are ringing around our 27-odd casuals to try and get people into work to fill 

those shifts. We are ringing around people who are willing to do overtime to come in and fill those shifts. These 

are the strategies that we have been using. But I cannot state enough that the comprehensive recruitment 

campaign I introduced in April last year is delivering results. Looking at those figures now, I would say that we 

are probably two more campaigns away from getting very close to a full staffing complement. 

Senator WONG: Mr Creagh, can you tell me anything now about what you were going away to find out? 

Mr Creagh: I am going to have to take that on notice because there is a fair amount of data that I am unable to 

filter through at this stage. 



Senator WONG: Going back to the original funding for the changes to security—which I think was in 2014- 

15—I would like to understand the staffing component and the component bits of the costing: how many people 

and at what levels. Against that, I would like to understand what has actually happened. There might have been 

changes. There might have been a revision to the allocation you sought. I am just trying to get a sense of the 

comparison between what you asked for and what you are doing. Is that okay? 

Mr Stefanic: We will get that for you. 

Senator WONG: Mr Cooper, I do not want to belabour this because I would like to move on. But you said 

there has not been a compromise—but there has. We had a very high-profile compromise in the Reps gallery, did 

we not? 

Mr Cooper: That was not the result of a lack of staffing. That was the point I made. 

The President: In relation to the question from Senator Wong—and the questions are welcome; there is no 

issue with that—I think it is good to again get it on the record that we have in excess of 100 AFP officers attached 

to the parliament through a memorandum of understanding with the Minister for Justice. We will have 

approaching—and I am not going to be exact with the numbers, for obvious reasons—200 departmental 

parliamentary security staff when we reach the point we wish to reach. They, both the AFP and the PSS, are 

organisations with trained staff. The gaps you referred to in the rostering system—that is a concern. But they have 

been filled. That might be the start-of-day roster you are examining rather than what actually happens on the day. 

That is a status. It is a fact at a point in time. 

Senator WONG: They are generated the night before, are they not? 

The President: Yes. I want to emphasise that there is a point in time when a roster is developed. After that 

point in time there should be no gaps in the roster at the points you have identified. I would hope that is the case, 

and I will certainly be questioning the department about this privately subsequent to this hearing. 

Senator WONG: That is fine, but maybe we should ask that question. I would like that information. 

The President: Exactly. These are the matters that I wanted to put out there. I believe the building is secure, 

and that is the most important thing—gaps are filled. In relation to the incident in the House of Representatives 

chamber, I again support the staff in relation to that. We had additional surge capacity, and this parliament also 

has a major surge capacity with the Australian Federal Police for incidents such as the one that occurred on that 

day. Outside of the front of Parliament House on that day there was a surge response which was very adequate 

and very rapid. 

Senator WONG: Is there a review of that incident being undertaken and, if so, what is its status? 

Mr Cooper: Yes, an investigation of that incident has been undertaken. A draft report with recommendations 

is being prepared for the Security Management Board? 

Senator WONG: When was that finalised? 

Mr Cooper: Perhaps last week. There has been some to-ing and fro-ing with it, but it will go to the next 

Security Management Board meeting or will go to them out of session prior to the next meeting. 

Senator WONG: At some point will it go to the relevant committee—the Senate Standing Committee on 

Appropriations, Staffing and Security? 

The President: I do not see any reason why they cannot have it. 

Senator WONG: Mr Cooper, you referred again today to a functional review of security—which you told me 

about in October 2016 as well. When is that being finalised and who is doing it? 

Mr Cooper: That is being conducted by DPS Security Branch and the AFP. It is due for completion in the 

second half of this calendar year. There are two components of that review. One is the review and improvement 

of our security policies and procedures. The other element is a risk management exercise—a risk review of the 

house. This would be the first review of its kind since the AFP came on board. 

Senator WONG: I am just trying to get some time frames. When is it likely to be finished? 

Mr Cooper: In the second half of this calendar year. 

Senator WONG: Okay. So it is quite some time. I will move on to another topic just so we can skip through. 

In early February the Prime Minister, the Minister for Education and Training, the Minister for Social Services 

and the Assistant Minister for Social Services conducted a press conference in what looked to be like footage 

involving the Parliament House childcare centre. Are you aware of that, Mr President? 

The President: No, but keep going, Senator Wong. 



Senator WONG: Can someone tell me whether or not the ministers in question and the Prime Minister 

actually entered the premises of the childcare centre and, if so, who did they seek consent from? 

The President: Senator Wong, it has come back to me now. Yes, the position of the Presiding Officers was 

sought, with a very clear stipulation that no child was to be filmed and there was no disruption to the childcare 

centre and, equally, the childcare centre gave their complicit consent. 

Senator WONG: What is complicit? 

The President: Their complete consent. 

Senator WONG: Complete consent. 

The President: It had to be without any equivocation. 

Senator WONG: I just want to make sure because you said 'complicit'. I think you meant complete. Yes? 

The President: We just wanted to make sure. If the childcare centre had any doubt whatsoever then it would 

not take place. 

Senator WONG: How was the permission sought? 

The President: I cannot answer that. 

Ms Croke: I might be able to help on that one. 

Senator WONG: First I want to ask the President, from his office's perspective— 

The President: I have no knowledge as to how the permission was sought, but that was our clear instruction 

to the inquiring officers. 

Senator WONG: I am happy to come to you, Ms Croke, but can I just ask this question. Mr President, I am 

just asking, at a political level, whether the PMO or one of the ministers' offices or one of the ministers contacted 

your office. 

The President: My understanding is this: the Prime Minister's office contacted the Speaker's office who then 

subsequently contacted my office. 

Senator WONG: To ask if they could have a venue, the childcare centre at Parliament House, used for the 

purposes of a press conference. 

The President: Correct, or within the vicinity—not necessarily inside. 

Senator WONG: You did not think that was a concern? 

The President: Absolutely. That is why I gave those clear instructions back and the Speaker supported those 

instructions. 

Senator WONG: It was a partisan press conference. 

The President: But we gave those clear instructions. 

Senator WONG: So the Prime Minister can just wander around Parliament House— 

The President: If anyone asked that question we would give the same instruction and it would be the same 

conditions, irrespective of the political party. 

Senator WONG: Okay. What was the time frame between the request and you giving that answer? 

The President: I will have to take advice on that. 

Senator WONG: It was on the same day? 

The President: Absolutely. 

Senator WONG: Did you respond in writing or only verbally? 

The President: Verbally to my chief of staff and— 

Senator WONG: Can I have a copy of that correspondence, that note? 

The President: It is an email from my chief of staff to the Speaker's chief of staff. I am happy to provide it to 

you, Senator Wong, whether or not we provide it publicly. I will certainly give it to you, whether or not it is for 

public release. 

Senator WONG: That is helpful—so then I cannot do anything with it, can I, if it is only to me? 

The President: Again, it may be something that I can provide to the committee. 

Senator WONG: Okay. If you can take that on notice and consider it. I am sorry, Ms Croke. Now, when did 

you get involved? 



Ms Croke: I was going to add that I received a phone call early on the morning that it was proposed to have 

the media conference from the chief of staff to the Speaker. So there had clearly been discussions between both 

the Presiding Officers. I got the message that we were to let the childcare centre know and see whether they had 

any concerns. The press conference was not actually in the childcare centre; it was in the courtyard, one of the 

parliamentary courtyards, looking back towards the play area of the childcare centre. 

Senator WONG: Did they go through the childcare centre, though? Did they walk through it? 

Ms Croke: Not that I recall, but I can take that on notice to double-check that. 

Senator WONG: So who spoke to the childcare centre operator? 

Ms Croke: One of the DPS staff members in the Parliamentary Experience Branch went down and spoke to 

the director of the childcare centre that morning and gave me advice which I then relayed back to the Presiding 

Officers' officers. 

Senator WONG: What was the advice? 

Ms Croke: The advice was to confirm that no child was to be filmed unless there was a permission in place, 

which was highly unlikely to be able to be achieved in that time frame. As it happened, at the time they were 

doing the press conference—it was something like nine or 9.30 in the morning—the children were actually inside 

the childcare centre, so it was not an issue. 

Senator WONG: Did the childcare operator express any concern about this? 

Ms Croke: Not that I recall because, as I said, at that point in the morning they were going to have all the 

children inside the childcare centre, so they would not have been visible from a camera filming within back 

towards the play area. 

Senator WONG: Has anyone asked this before? 

Ms Croke: To film in that area? 

Senator WONG: Yes. 

Ms Croke: I would have to take that on notice. I do not recall it in the time I have been overseeing and 

managing that in my space. 

Senator WONG: Mr President, last year you and the Speaker announced increased security around the 

building, including construction of a fence. I just want to understand the status of that. Have there been any 

approaches to market relating to that project? I am not going to ask about detail; I am just going to ask about 

process. 

The President: If I answer that by saying, 'Yes, the process is underway,' I hope the next question is not, 

'When do we see activity?' 

Senator WONG: No. 

The President: It has all progressed. 

Senator WONG: What I want to know is, was there any approach to market, or did you just pick someone? 

The President: There has been a proper tender process approach to market. 

Senator WONG: There was a proper tender process. 

The President: Yes, an approach to market in the normal way. 

Senator WONG: Did you use AusTender? 

The President: I might ask the department to answer this. 

Senator WONG: You should have. It should have been on AusTender. 

The President: I assume so, but I will let the department answer. 

Mr Stefanic: Yes, it was. 

Senator WONG: I would like on notice a list of consultants and contractors engaged on this project to date 

and those engaged for future work. Is that all right? 

The President: I am sure the secretary will take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: I am happy to flick to my colleagues now. Thank you, chair. 

Senator LUDLAM: On the same topic, what degree of public consultation was there? There is a 2.6-metre 

high fence proposed to be put right around the parliamentary building to protect people from getting up onto the 

lawns. What, if any, public consultation occurred before that proposal got the green light? 



Mr Stefanic: There was no public consultation on that. The advice guiding the perimeter security measures 

was a collaboration between AFP, ASIO, the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Finance and 

DPS. It looked at a range of measures. The fences receive considerable attention, but there is a whole package of 

works contained in that. I might take the opportunity to place on record that it is not a fence right around the 

building. There are a number of fences at strategic points. As the presiding officers have put on record, there will 

still be substantial space, particularly on the northern ramps, for the public to walk up and down or roll down. 

People will still be able to access the remaining part of the grass ramp areas by going through security screening 

and accessing the lift to go onto the rooftop. 

Senator LUDLAM: I am sure rolling down the lawns was an important part of the original architect's vision 

for the building. But part of the architect's vision for the building was that people would be able to walk up those 

lawns. It is, I hope you would agree, a fairly important and embedded part of the architectural vision of this 

building. 

The President: We have taken that into account. Well over 10 years ago, access by walking completely over 

the building was restricted. I cannot recall any complaints in the last 10 years about that. So access to the roof 

part, where people can actually stand over their parliamentarians and stand on the roof of Parliament House, still 

exists today exactly as it did before these modifications were mooted. So every member of the public can come in 

and be screened and go to the rooftop. 

Senator LUDLAM: Security screening was not part of the original vision, with respect. 

The President: Well, the world has moved on since the original vision, Senator Ludlam, sadly. 

Senator LUDLAM: The building was constructed in the late stages of the Cold War, when Australia was part 

of a nuclear stand-off with the Soviet Union. Is the threat level really that different to justify this significant 

change to the way that the building functions? 

The President: We act on advice from a variety of agencies, including ASIO, the Australian Federal Police, 

the Attorney-General's Department and others. The advice we take seriously. We examine the advice, we test the 

advice. The position we have arrived at will keep Parliament House in a secure manner and allow maximum 

access. The access regime really will not change; it will be as it has been in the last 10 or 15 years. 

Senator LUDLAM: How far down the ramps on the north face will the new fences be? 

The President: How would I describe it? This is not 100 per cent accurate. How I would describe it is that we 

are encroaching less than a few hundred metres down. Basically a third of the ramps will still be accessible 

instead of two-thirds. 

Senator LUDLAM: You should be able to walk up 40 or 50 metres at the most? 

Mr Stefanic: I understand it will be more than that. Senator, can I also place on record that the fences that 

were put in in 2005 were actually done with the design of the nominated architect, Romaldo Giurgola. So the 

architect of Parliament House was actually involved in the establishment of those fences that were put up in 2005. 

Senator LUDLAM: You say that there was not a significant protest or outcry at the time. That was about the 

year that I arrived and started working in the building, and I cannot recall that far back exactly what was involved. 

But the Australian Institute of Architects has launched a petition to prevent this new fence from being 

constructed. You are nodding, Mr Stefanic, so I presume you are aware of that. 

Mr Stefanic: Yes. With the agreement of the Presiding Officers I met with the Australian architects 

association because I was concerned about the misinformation in the public domain. That was starting to get a 

little bit out of control. In meeting with the association I invited Hal Guida, who is one of the original design team 

and also a moral rights holder for Parliament House. We were joined by Pamille Berg, who was also a partner in 

the architectural firm that designed Parliament House, and she is also a moral rights holder. They both hold moral 

rights as representatives of Mr Giurgola. The association came to Parliament House and I met with them. I met 

with Ms Berg by telephone and with Mr Guida in person, because he lives in Canberra. We explained 

confidentially what was being planned and what we intended to achieve. Subsequent to that the association wrote 

to all their members retracting the press statement and they also withdrew the petition that they had placed on 

Change.org. I did further request them to issue a press release also retracting the information publicly, but they 

have not yet done so. 

Senator LUDLAM: I am just going to check and see whether the petition is still alive, because it appears to 

be. While I go and do that, could you tell me: one of the other things the institute has called for is a release of the 

five-year conservation management plan and design principles for the House. I probably should not traverse what 

was discussed in that meeting, but is that something that you would consider releasing? 



Mr Stefanic: There is no finalised conservation management plan or design principles. There was a project to 

complete those documents. The first draft of those arrived on my desk shortly after I commenced with DPS in 

December 2015. As part of a normal process which I instituted with the assistance of Dr Heriot, as a regular 

practice we consult with the moral rights holders for advice. The feedback we received on those draft documents 

was quite disconcerting. It would appear that in developing the brief my department had not consulted with Mr 

Giurgola or the moral rights holders, and consequently the documents that were prepared had some significant 

factual inaccuracies in them and required a substantial amount of work to repair. I wrote to the consultants 

seeking their advice about making changes to the documents. One of the consultants obliged and made relevant 

changes to the document. The consultants to the conservation management plan disagreed with a lot of the 

feedback and refused to make those changes. I felt that we were at an impasse and, given the resources that would 

be required to complete those documents, by mutual agreement I decided to terminate the contracts for both the 

CMP and the design principles. 

In its place, in July last year I engaged Ms Pamille Berg, who was the original author of the central reference 

document which was discontinued some years ago. I re-engaged her for the completion of that document, which 

was to be the single source of authority on the design intent of Parliament House. That project has now started. As 

we complete various chapters we intend to prepare what you might call a management plan. This will eventually 

become the management plan for the parliament. I am sorry, that was a really long answer to your question, but it 

was important for you to understand the context. 

Senator LUDLAM: Is that the document that will end up being tabled once it has been completed? 

Mr Stefanic: The current version of the central reference document is on the intranet. As the document is 

updated, the intranet will be updated similarly. 

Senator LUDLAM: That is available to staff and MPs, so it is not a secret— 

Mr Stefanic: No, anyone with an APH email address should be able to access it. 

Senator LUDLAM: When I first came to work here, we did not have guys with automatic weapons out the 

front of the building, we did not have the fences on the rooftop and the ministerial wing was not fortified to the 

extent that it is now. There were discussions for a while about a moat around the building. The security around 

this building only ever appears to go in one direction. Perhaps that is a reflection of the changing international 

security environment, but it appears that security is trumping the original design principles of this building again 

and again—not all at once, but incrementally. Where do we draw the line? Are we going to end up in a building 

surrounded by razor wire? 

Mr Stefanic: You quite rightly pointed out that the original brief for the construction of Parliament House was 

developed in the late 1970s. Those times were certainly different from now. Changes have been made 

progressively over time, as you have observed. Without going into detail, the changes that are proposed are 

intended to be scalable. It is my hope—I obviously cannot speak for the long-distant future—that we would not 

have to be creating more invasive measures in future. What we are putting in place now should serve us even if 

there were an escalation in the threat level. 

Senator BERNARDI: Ms Croke mentioned a merit selection process in a previous answer, and it tweaked my 

memory, so I went through my folder. There was a question about the recruitment and merit selection policy of 

2016. What were the substantive changes from the previous policy? 

Ms Croke: I will need to take that on notice. I have not reviewed the previous policy for some time. 

Senator BERNARDI: I will be more specific. In 2011-12, this committee had an inquiry into DPS—they 

seem to be rather regular, as you are probably aware. There were certain recommendations made about improving 

the merit selection process. These included, in regard to recruitment, that conflicts of interest had to be declared 

and managed externally to the recruitment panel and that each panel had to include an independent member— 

someone from outside of DPS. Are those two policies still in place for the 2016 recruitment and merit selection 

policy? 

Ms Croke: The conflict of interest arrangement is pretty much the same, so panel members are required to fill 

out a conflict of interest. That is required to go to the recruitment section before the interviews take place and 

people are required to declare any perceived or known conflict of interest. In terms of panel members, we have 

relaxed that a little. We can now have panel members within the department, but we generally require, or we do 

require, one to be outside of the division where the vacancy is. 

Senator BERNARDI: The information that I have—I will just get attachment B up here—in announcing this 

says, 'The updated policy aims to provide clearer guidance for panels and delegates conducting recruitment in 

DPS, including in relation to options to consider before filling a vacancy in DPS.' This one is an important one 



because I know you have just taken some advice: 'Conflict of interest declarations relating to recruitment will now 

be managed by the selection panel chair in consultation with the delegate.' That does not seem consistent with 

conflicts of interest having to be declared and managed externally to the panel. 

Ms Croke: I have done several recruitments in the last six months. I might need to clarify that because 

recruitment have chased me for those conflicts and we have provided them. I will check that. 

Senator BERNARDI: You have just taken advice—I know you have taken advice, Ms Croke—when I 

specifically asked about whether conflicts of interest were declared and managed externally to the panel; and yet 

DPS advice, the most recent one that I have, says, 'Conflicts of interest relating to recruitment will now be 

managed by the selection panel chair.' 


Senator BERNARDI: That seems to contradict the earlier process. 

Ms Croke: I will check that because, as I have just said, I have done numerous recruitments in the last six 

months. In each case where I have been the panel chair and have got the conflicts of interest, recruitment, as a 

routine, have sent those out to the committees and have been following up on that. 

Senator BERNARDI: So they are managed by the selection panel chair— 

Ms Croke: But recruitment follow that up. Let me take that on notice. 

Senator BERNARDI: in consultation with the delegate. That is what it says: 'And managed by the selection 

panel chair', which is you— 


Senator BERNARDI: Even though this committee in 2011-12 said they should be declared and managed 

externally to the panel. 

Ms Croke: And the process for sending them back to recruitment. If there are any issues, that is where 

recruitment and the delegates in that area and above can look at any conflicts and raise it with the panel chair. We 

have had panels change where we have known there is a conflict. 

Senator BERNARDI: Ms Croke, 'managed externally to the panel' means something different to me than 

'managed by the selection panel chair'. 

Ms Croke: Okay. 

Senator BERNARDI: Does it mean the same thing to you? 

Ms Croke: They do say different things, but what I am saying to you also is that recruitment are still playing 

an active role. Can I come back to you on that? 

Senator BERNARDI: That is great, but they are conflicting, are they not? 

Ms Croke: They are different things. 

Senator BERNARDI: They are different things. So it is not the same. 

Ms Croke: I accept that, Senator. 

Senator BERNARDI: Are you going to accept the advice that you received as well, which was saying it was 

pretty much the same? You understand why we get suspicious about everything we are told? 

Ms Croke: I can understand that, as you have read them, they are saying different things but, in practice, 

recruitment is following up on those declarations and dealing with any conflicts of interest. As I said, in a number 

of cases the composition of panels has been changed where there is a potential conflict. 

CHAIR: Senator Bernardi, do you have many more questions on this? 

Senator BERNARDI: Yes, I have a couple. It could be easy. If the answer is yes or no— 

CHAIR: I hope that it is because we are way over time and there are many other senators with the call. 

Senator BERNARDI: It will not be long. You know the standing orders. Do I have to repeat them to 

everybody again? 

CHAIR: No, you do not. 

Senator BERNARDI: I am happy to. 

CHAIR: Unless you want to disrupt Indigenous— 

Senator WONG: We can ask George Brandis to appear on another occasion. 

CHAIR: This is not productive. Senator Bernardi, please be as quick as you can. 



Senator BERNARDI: What about the requirement that each panel has to include an independent member 

outside of DPS? 

Ms Croke: That was the one that I said we relaxed a little. 

Senator BERNARDI: You have relaxed that a little? 


Senator BERNARDI: Relaxed means removal of a requirement for an independent panel member to be 

outside of DPS. 

Ms Croke: Because we were generally going to our parliamentary department colleagues it was becoming 

quite an impost on them in terms of time. I think the department had got to a point where we said we can do what 

other departments do, and that is, you have somebody outside the area that is directly involved as the independent 

person on that panel. That does not mean from time to time we do not get completely external members on 

panels; we do. 

Senator BERNARDI: When was the decision? These were recommendations of a committee and they were 

for a particular reason. Who made the decision just to say, 'Well, let's ignore those now, or let's ditch them,' or 

relax them as you so delightfully put it? 

Ms Croke: When we go through the process to put out a new policy in the HR space, we go through a 

consultation process, so it is developed within my team. We try to take account of all the sorts of issues that have 

been apparent to them in that particular policy space. It then goes through the consultative forum and, if we have 

not had a consultative forum meeting coming up—because it meets each quarter—we quite often put them out of 

session for consultation and we put them up on our portal for all staff to have input and comment. Then we take 

account of all those comments and then they are put to the secretary for approval. So we go through a very 

extensive consultation process around each policy. 

Senator BERNARDI: And it would go through extensive reviews in DPS to come up with some 

recommendations from this committee. We seem to be doing it again and again. Finally, Chair, on another topic: 

who deals with DPS's policy of laptops? 

Mr McKenzie: That would be me as Acting Chief Information Officer. 

Senator BERNARDI: Thank you, Mr McKenzie. What types of laptops are DPS staff allowed to have? 

Mr McKenzie: I believe there is a standard model. I will be seeking from my team the actual model number 

and brand. It depends on what the department of finance panel is at the time. We procure those laptops from the 

department of finance whole-of-government panel. So whatever is about available on that panel at the time is 

what we procure from based on the best read of the requirements at the time. 

Senator BERNARDI: If the Apple MacBook Pro part of the panel? 

Mr McKenzie: There would be a panel for the Apple MacBook Pro. It is not currently available through the 

parliamentarians' catalogue, but we do have a project at the moment, called the end-user computing project, and 

we are looking hopefully to make Apple Mac laptops available to parliamentarians. 

Senator BERNARDI: I was not actually inquiring about parliamentarians, I am actually inquiring about DPS 

executives. Is it on the panel for DPS employees? 

Mr McKenzie: There would be panels which we would procure from but then we also have a device 

allocation policy which determines what devices we make available to people within the parliament depending on 

their department. 

Senator BERNARDI: Have any senior DPS executives asked for an Apple MacBook Pro or some similar 

Apple device which was not standard as part of the panel? 

Mr McKenzie: I believe the Parliamentary Librarian, as a statutory officeholder, does have an Apple 

MacBook. 

Dr Heriot: I have an Apple MacBook, Senator. I was issued it on my request when I was acting secretary and 

I have not returned it as I am still using it. 

Senator BERNARDI: Is that supported by 2020? It is surprising, Dr Herriot. I do not know who has the 

Apple MacBook Pro. I just know that one was requested and it is not normally available. Are you the only one 

who has made that request? 

Dr Heriot: I know that I have made a request. 

Senator BERNARDI: You made a request, okay, fine. Mr McKenzie, has anyone else made that request? 



Mr McKenzie: Not to my knowledge. 

Dr Heriot: I have not requested any support for it other than the issuing. 

Senator BERNARDI: But it was provided by the department. 

Dr Heriot: It was. 

Senator BERNARDI: But it is not supported by the department. 

Dr Heriot: Well, I have never requested support for it. 

Senator BERNARDI: Okay. That might solve the question. Thank you. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Bernardi. Senator Leyonhelm. 

Dr Heriot: Sorry, Chair, it was in my period as acting secretary. 

Senator BERNARDI: I accept that. I just wanted to find out if there was anyone else as well. 

CHAIR: Senator Leyonhelm. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: Thank you. I just have a quick question and follow-up to previous estimates in 

relation to wi-fi provision and wi-fi in electorate offices. I think Mr McKenzie might be the appropriate person. 

At last estimates I inquired about this and, to be frank, I got blank looks. The question is: is there any attention 

being paid to wi-fi in electorate offices which is not restricted to simply DPS provided equipment? 

Mr McKenzie: Yes, there is,. We raised this matter, I believe, in the last estimates and it was indicated at the 

PICTAB meeting. I know there were people in and out that meeting, so, Senator, I am not sure if you are actually 

present at the time that that was discussed. I indicated that one of the things we are looking at as part of the same 

project, the end-user computing project, is BYOD devices. Parliamentarians and their staff who have APH 

accounts will be able to bring personal devices into an electorate office and use them as a BYOD. We are looking 

to enhance that capability. The issue of public access is a little bit more problematic. I can go into that in a bit 

more detail if you wish. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: The issue is that, if I have a visitor to my office here in Parliament House and they 

wish to show me something, provide some information to me, and require internet access, they can use the free 

wifi service available in Parliament House. If that same person with that same information to share with me 

comes to my electorate office, they cannot—unless they use their own phone as a modem or something like 

that—use the wifi service provided in the electorate office. Yet it is not a major issue to provide two wifi services 

from the same device. It is a relatively common thing. One could be restricted to DPS equipment. One could be 

made available, even with a password, to visitors. That is why I am asking whether it is under consideration. If it 

is not, why not? 

Mr McKenzie: It is being examined. There are a number of complexities to offering public wifi in electorate 

offices. They are not technical. Technically it is not a major challenge for us to offer that as a service. The wifi 

within Parliament House is offered in the same way as it is in many public institutions in Canberra, such as the 

National Library and so forth, so we offer it as a service to visitors and to tourists alike. When looking at wifi 

within the electorate offices, we have a number of challenges around security. Parliament House is quite 

contained. The wireless signal, as you know, does bleed beyond the boundary of the building. So within 

Parliament House, when Parliament House shuts down at 5 o'clock, the wireless signal only extends out past the 

boundary of the building a short way. It would be very evident if someone was sitting in a car or outside 

Parliament House for a long period of time trying to use the wifi to compromise the network. I am sure they 

would be noticed and identified and moved on by the AFP. Electorate offices are often in very public areas. They 

are often in shopping malls. They are in, often, areas out in the public. So we would not have that same visibility 

if someone sat outside for a long period of time or set up a relay or had the opportunity over a long period of time 

to try and use the public wifi to compromise the network. 

There is another thing we would have to take into account. And these are discussions we can bring back to 

PICTAB, because when we had the discussion at PICTAB with the available members the feedback we received 

was that public wifi was being requested because of the use of BYOD. But if it is something that does need to be 

considered further, we can take it back to PICTAB. One of the challenges would also be around essentially 

launching around 250 additional public wifi hotspots around the country, which puts us almost in the vein of 

being an internet service provider, and the impact that might have on other businesses surrounding the electorate 

offices. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: Just a final point on this. A good example of what might be provided is what the 

airlines provide in their lounge, which is a daily changing password. I am not sure that I accept your analogy that 



it is equivalent to a public hotspot. If the airlines in their lounges are providing a public hotspot, well, I suppose 

the analogy applies. But it is not as if just anybody can log in. 

Mr McKenzie: No. We would have to look at that and look at the resource overhead of managing that— 

issuing daily passwords, changing them, whether it is the same password for every electorate office, whether 

electorate offices could set their own passwords. If there was the need to have a password added to infrastructure, 

that would be a cost and an overhead which we would have to evaluate. Currently in Parliament House it is purely 

open wifi. If you walk in, you do not require any authentication. We do, essentially, offer a hotspot. The current 

infrastructure supports that. To add a password layer on top of that would require some investigation. 

CHAIR: Senator Leyonhjelm, are you coming to the end of this? 

Senator LEYONHJELM: Yes, I am close to the end of this. So I am going to ask you at the next estimates 

how this is progressing. I am hoping that I hear some news about progress. 

Mr McKenzie: If I can take offline and have an offline conversation to understand the needs of you and other 

parliamentarians, we can better come back with a response. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: Thank you. 

CHAIR: Senator Kitching 

Senator KITCHING: Ms Croke, I think you might be the most appropriate person to ask about enterprise 

bargaining in DPS. You were asked some questions in October at the supplementary budget estimates session. I 

understand that subsequent to that estimates round the agreement has been voted down by 73 per cent of the 782 

staff voting no. Can you confirm this? 

Ms Croke: Yes, that is correct; 73 per cent, 573 staff out of 887, did vote no. 

Senator KITCHING: I also understand there were several errors made during the DPS enterprise agreement 

voting process which occurred in December. For example, is it correct that the access period commenced on 

Wednesday, 7 December when in fact the voting period was due to commence on Wednesday, 14 December? 

Ms Croke: We did have an adjustment in the access period. 

Senator KITCHING: But it was not just an adjustment; it was incorrect. 

Ms Croke: We delayed the period. On 2 December employees were advised of the intention to offer the 

proposal, subject to it being approved by the APS Commissioner. We put the proposed replacement enterprise 

agreement—sorry, I am just getting my dates right here. 

Senator KITCHING: What were the reasons the commissioner gave? 

Ms Croke: The commissioner did not vary the access period; we did. The problem was that we had put the 

proposed replacement enterprise agreement to staff. That had been presented to all staff at a meeting on 6 

December. On 8 December the access period restarted because there was a technical error in the form of the 

agreement we had posted on the intranet and the internet. As a result of that ballot period, dates were changed. 

They were originally going to be from 14 December to 20 December. They were changed to 16 December to 21 

December. 

Senator KITCHING: So all staff received an email on 8 December to say that the voting period would need 

to recommence because of errors in the proposed agreement? 

Ms Croke: It was a technical error with respect to the version and the way we had presented the version. The 

difficulty is that the version you present to the staff at that point in whatever form you put it, even if it has 'draft' 

across it, is the form that becomes your final agreement. 

Senator KITCHING: But it was about the wording, wasn't it? It was not just because someone had written 

'draft' across the agreement. So it was a technical error but not a technical error because someone had put 'draft' 

incorrectly? 

Ms Croke: That was one of the things we fixed. There were very minor technical errors and as a result we— 

Senator KITCHING: It was the wording, though, wasn't it? 


Senator KITCHING: That is not a technical error in an enterprise agreement. The wording has to be precise. 

Ms Croke: It does, and that is what we were correcting. As I said, that delayed the access period and the 

voting period was changed—the ballot period. 

Senator KITCHING: I am told the ballot question put to the staff was, 'Do you vote in favour of the 

Department of Parliamentary Services enterprise agreement 2017 ballot?' Is that correct? 



Ms Croke: That is correct. The word 'ballot' should, ideally, not have been in that question. 

Senator KITCHING: Is it right that several staff found this to be misleading? People were obviously in 

favour of having a ballot but not necessarily in favour of endorsing the agreement, so it was misleading for 

people. 

Ms Croke: One staff member did raise the question of whether the question as proposed with 'ballot' at the 

end of it was misleading to staff. We did not think it was. We thought it had had such a lot of information going to 

staff—the fact that they were about to vote on the agreement itself—that even with that word 'ballot' on the end of 

the question it was not going to cause confusion to staff as to what they were actually voting for. Staff were well 

aware that they were voting on the agreement, and I think that is reflected in the outcome of the voting we got and 

the participation rate. 

CHAIR: Senator Kitching, just to clarify: do you have any more questions? I think we are going to have to get 

DPS back after lunch. 

Senator KITCHING: No, I do not. 

CHAIR: Okay, please continue. 

Senator McALLISTER: I thought we had agreed that after lunch we would be proceeding to PM&C as a 

matter of priority. 

CHAIR: That was my hope too, but senators went longer than I would have liked. 

Senator McALLISTER: I think we would be willing to put our questions on notice, but I have one question 

for Mr Lloyd that I would like to proceed to before we break for lunch. I think we should consider adjourning ten 

minutes late if necessary. 

CHAIR: I am happy to adjourn ten minutes later if it makes a difference. 

Senator McALLISTER: We want to be in a position to come to Prime Minister and Cabinet by the time we 

return from lunch. 

CHAIR: I would like to do that as well. Let us see if we can press forward quickly. 

Senator KITCHING: I do have some other questions on this, but I think I will put them on notice. I will also 

put on notice some questions in relation to rates of pay for cleaners in Parliament House—as they have not had a 

wage increase, I believe, since 2012. 

Senator HINCH: I apologise if you have already covered this ground, but I was in another meeting. In his 

questions Senator Ludlam referred, en passant, to a moat. Is it true that under the Abbott government it was 

seriously considered that a moat would be built around Parliament House? 

The President: No, that is not correct. There was never going to be a moat around Parliament House. There 

was going to be—can I describe it as a ditch?—a ha-ha. That is the correct technical name. That was mooted for 

just one section of the Parliament House perimeter—just one boundary, not the other three. But that had some 

serious technical difficulties and could not be proceeded with. But it was not a moat, it was not all the way around 

Parliament House and it was never to be filled with water or crocodiles or anything like that. It was simply going 

to be a ditch to prevent people from accessing the— 

CHAIR: Where is your imagination, Mr President? 

The President: It is incorrect that there was ever going to be a moat around Parliament House. 

Senator HINCH: You are saying that the word 'moat' was misguided. There was some sort of ditch thing 

being considered, but it was not going to be filled with water. It was not like around a castle? 

The President: Correct. It was just two ditches on either side of a couple of driveways on one approach. As 

with many things, it gets exaggerated—with security fencing, for example, there is no fence around Parliament 

House as gets claimed. 

Senator HINCH: With the fence, which is now a fait accompli, despite the Greens and me voting against, as 

you know, were any alternatives considered? Were things like manning the top fence, the unobtrusive fence— 

putting guards up there—considered? 

The President: Many options were considered. We settled on the advice from the security agencies in 

particular—the AFP, ASIO and the Attorney-General's Department. We took the best advice and examined other 

ways of doing things. But the option we chose was based on the best advice: a physical barrier is better than 

using, if you like, a human barrier. 



Senator HINCH: The idea of moving the fence so that it only went from the edge of the building down—that 

was discarded? That is the idea of leaving the great swards of grass free and extending the fence from the building 

itself. 

The President: That would have had some technical difficulties as well. We ended up with the best possible 

solution that had the minimum visual effect and the minimum encroachment on the free area. 

Senator HINCH: Can you verify The Australian Financial Review story from this morning that says that the 

rent at Aussies is going from $94,000 to $160,000 a year, that they have been given only a one-month contract— 

they will be reviewed every month— 

CHAIR: I am sorry, Senator Hinch, but we addressed this issue in some detail earlier. I will just ask for a very 

quick response from Mr Stefanic. 

Senator HINCH: And changing the name of Aussies? 

The President: There were many inaccuracies in that report. I encourage you to read the Hansard. 

Senator HINCH: I will do so. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I want to go back to the issue of the wall being built around Parliament House. 

How much is being spent on the fence itself? 

The President: There is no wall being built around Parliament House. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: One person's wall is another person's fence. 

The President: There are fence segments being relocated and extended in height—but also being made less of 

a visual barrier. As far as the dollars are concerned, I will ask the department to answer. 

Mr Stefanic: I do not have the break-up of individual components. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: How can you not have the break-ups? 

Mr Stefanic: There are many components to what is a significant project. Fences are only one element of a 

whole range of measures. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: To give us a figure of $60 million overall but to be unable to tell us how much 

you are spending on the actual fence—that seems a bit poor. 

The President: One of the issues we have is that if we start breaking down individual components in the 

public arena—and I have always emphasised that we are more than happy to let the committee know in a closed 

session—and if we start breaking down too much of the financial costs and what is being spent on what, people 

who might want to do us harm can use that information in different ways. So I am happy to supply that 

information— 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: You do have the information. You are just not willing to share it, which is 

different to what the secretary has said. 

The President: No, the secretary was very accurate by saying there is a composite figure that involves many 

elements of security enhancement to Parliament House. To break that down could compromise things. But we are 

always happy to do it in camera at a later stage with this committee. 

Senator WONG: Perhaps I can assist. I understand you have taken on notice whether you can break it down, 

for you to consider the security issues you have raised. But I asked a question earlier, I think before Senator 

Hanson-Young got here, about the tenders. Those are already public figures, essentially. So if you provide on 

notice all of the ones in the categories that I requested, we will at least get the figures associated with those. 

Correct? 

Mr Yanitsas: Yes, that is correct. 

Senator WONG: Thank you. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Is the fence the expensive component of the $60 million? 


Senator HANSON-YOUNG: What is the expensive component? 

The President: That is exactly what we do not want to talk about in the public arena. These are serious 

matters. These are matters that we are always happy to brief individual senators on, which we have done in the 

past. Equally, we are always happy to speak to the committee in camera. 



Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Okay, can I press on. There has been a lot of discussion about the rent going up 

at Aussies this morning. I do not want to go over that ground. What I do want to know is whether any further rent 

increases are expected for other occupants of Parliament House. 

Ms Croke: For other licence holders we have in the past—probably over the past 18 months or two years— 

renewed all of the agreements in the press gallery. There were some increases there. We are still talking to the 

other licence holders—the physiotherapist and the hairdresser. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Is there any increase listed or being considered for the childcare centre? 

Ms Croke: The childcare centre's licence runs until the end of 2018, I think. I would need to take on notice 

what we are doing after that. But they have a current licence for that one. Yes, it is January 2018. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: When was the last time they had a rent increase? 

Ms Croke: I would need to check. A lot of the agreements do have an annual CPI increase in them. No, hang 

on, we do not actually charge them licence fees. They are the ones we do not charge a fee to. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: So they do not pay rent? 

Ms Croke: They do not pay rent. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Has there been an increase for media organisations in the press gallery lately? 

Ms Croke: Most of the agreements were settled early last year, and there were some increases to reflect 

increases in the cost of utilities. Since then, the variations have been where they have increased areas and 

decreased areas. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Is there a schedule of how much it costs to rent space in the press gallery? 

Ms Croke: It varies because each media licensee has a very different area. So it accounts for the space they 

have. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Sure, just like renting an office in a building. 

Ms Croke: Yes. I can take on notice whether there is a— 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Is it transparent in any way? 

Ms Croke: It is transparent to each of the licensees when we negotiate with them. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Yes, but does one occupant know the rent they are paying versus the rent the 

person next door is paying? 

Ms Croke: It is a commercial and confidential agreement with each individual licensee, so no, not unless they 

share it amongst themselves. We would not share that information. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Is there any public documentation for the taxpayer to know how much the 

various media organisations are paying to be housed in Parliament House, the people's house? 

Ms Croke: Rent for the press gallery in total for this current financial year to the end of January was slightly 

over $1 million. 

Senator McALLISTER: For the benefit of other senators, opposition senators have repeatedly ceded our time 

to allow the committee to progress in an orderly way. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I am nearly finished. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: So $1 million overall, but there is no schedule that you can say the various 

different units in the press gallery are being charged this amount for rent? 

Ms Croke: No. As I said, we have an individual licence agreement with each licensee. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Could I ask you to take it on notice? I would like a schedule of how much 

people are paying in the press gallery and for what amount of space. 

Ms Croke: We will look at what we can provide to you. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I do not see why there would be a problem and why that would be an issue of 

something that needs to be kept secret. 

Ms Croke: It is an individual commercial arrangement with each one, but we will look at what we can provide 

you in general terms and see what else we can do. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Could I also get you to take on notice what the time frame is for any other rent 

increases, either in the press gallery or amongst any of the other occupants? 

Ms Croke: We can certainly identify that in terms of the regular CPI increases and other arrangements. 



Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Or outside of that. Of course, we know Aussies is not CPI. 

Ms Croke: The only time it occurs outside the licence is when we get to the end of the licence and we are in 

the process of negotiating a new licence with the licensee. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Thank you. 

Senator WONG: Can I just go through that again? The commercial-in-confidence claim which I think you 

have alluded to—there is a process. The committee would need to entertain that claim. I do not think it would be 

helpful to Senator Hanson-Young if she just gets commercial-in-confidence without any explanation, in 

accordance with the statement the chair reads out at the commencement of the hearing. 

Ms Croke: I am aware of that. We will look at that. 

CHAIR: Thank you. In the interests of time, there will be questions on notice. Do any other senators have 

questions of DPS? There being no further questions, I thank the department. 

[12:37] 

Parliamentary Service Commissioner 

CHAIR: I welcome the Parliamentary Service Commissioner, the Hon. John Lloyd. Mr Lloyd, do you wish to 

make an opening statement? 

Mr Lloyd: No, I do not. 

Senator McALLISTER: I have some very brief questions for you. We were discussing this morning with the 

Department of the Senate the way that their bargaining process is constrained by the enterprise bargaining policy 

more broadly across government. There was some indication that if they sought to deviate from the bargaining 

framework, in your Parliamentary Service Commissioner role you may have a role in approving such a deviation. 

Is that your understanding? 

Mr Lloyd: No, it is not, Senator. The role in relation to bargaining is clearly as the Public Service 

Commissioner. The Parliamentary Service Commissioner provides advice to the Presiding Officers on matters 

relating essentially to employment principles and values—things like that—and, of course, can provide advice if 

they are asked to do an inquiry. I do not see that it would be the role of the Parliamentary Service Commissioner 

to provide advice on that. I would do it as Public Service Commissioner, I would have thought. 

Senator McALLISTER: Thank you. As that is the case I will reserve my questions around that for when you 

appear in that capacity. I have no further questions, Chair. 

CHAIR: As there are no further questions, I thank the Parliamentary Service Commissioner. We will look 

forward to seeing you later today. I thank the President. 

The President: I am released as well. I am on parole too. 

CHAIR: You are. We will adjourn and resume with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 




PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET PORTFOLIO 

In Attendance 

Senator Brandis, Attorney-General 

Senator Cash, Minister for Employment, Minister for Women and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the 

Public Service 

Outcome 1 

Program 1.1—Assurance Audit Services 

Program 1.2—Performance Audit Services 

Mr Grant Hehir, Auditor-General 

Ms Rona Mellor PSM, Deputy Auditor-General 

Ms Michelle Kelly, Group Executive Director 

Ms Deborah Rollings, Senior Executive Director 

Ms Deborah Jackson, Executive Director 

Outcome 1 

Australian Public Service Commission 

The Hon. John Lloyd PSM, Australian Public Service Commissioner 

Ms Stephanie Foster, Deputy Australian Public Service Commissioner 

Ms Kerryn Vine-Camp, First Assistant Commissioner 

Ms Annwyn Godwin, Merit Protection Commissioner 

Ms Clare Page, Group Manager, Corporate 

Mr Marco Spaccavento, Group Manager, Workplace Relations 

Ms Caroline Walsh, Group Manager, APS Reform 

Ms Kerren Crosthwaite, Acting Group Manager, Employment Policy 

Ms Helen Bull, Group Manager, Workforce Information 

Mr Patrick Palmer, Group Manager, Tribunals 

Ms Liz Quinn, Group Manager, Centre for Leadership and Learning 

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 

Outcome 1 

Economic Group 

Dr David Gruen, Deputy Secretary, Economic 

Mr Luke Yeaman, First Assistant Secretary, Industry, Infrastructure and Environment Division 

Mr Duncan McIntyre, Assistant Secretary, Public Data Branch 

Mr Neil Williams, Assistant Secretary, Industry, Science and Communications Branch 

Ms Kelly Pearce, Assistant Secretary, Environment, Energy and Climate Change Branch 

Ms Julia Pickworth, Assistant Secretary, Infrastructure, Agriculture and Regional Development Branch 

Mr Simon Duggan, First Assistant Secretary, Economic Division 

Ms Faye Liu, Assistant Secretary, Project Office 

Social Policy Group 

Ms Lin Hatfield Dodds, Deputy Secretary, Social Policy 

Mr Nathan Williamson, First Assistant Secretary, Social Policy Division 

Ms Ailsa Borwick, Assistant Secretary, Social Services and Immigration Branch 

Ms Susan Fitzgerald, Assistant Secretary, Health Branch 

Ms Linda Laker, Assistant Secretary, Education Branch 

Ms Joanna Da Rocha, Assistant Secretary, PFAS Taskforce 

Mr Chris Carlile, Assistant Secretary, PFAS Taskforce 



Ms Amanda McIntyre, First Assistant Secretary, Office for Women 

Ms Melissa Cranfield, Assistant Secretary, Office for Women 

Innovation and Transformation 

Dr Steven Kennedy, Deputy Secretary, Innovation and Transformation 

Ms Mary Wiley-Smith, First Assistant Secretary, Cities Division 

Ms Tanja Cvijanovic, First Assistant Secretary, Regulatory Reform Division 

Mr Wayne Poels, Deputy Executive Director, Office of Best Practice Regulation 

Governance Group 

Ms Elizabeth Kelly, Deputy Secretary, Governance 

Ms Paula Ganly, First Assistant Secretary, Ministerial Support Division 

Ms Deborah Lewis, First Assistant Secretary, Corporate Services Division 

Ms Philippa Lynch, First Assistant Secretary, Government Division 

Mr Peter Rush, Assistant Secretary, Parliamentary and Government Branch 

Mr Peter Arnaudo, Assistant Secretary, Honours, Symbols and Legal Policy Branch 

Ms Charlotte Tressler, First Assistant Secretary, Financial Services Division 

Ms Sarah Vandenbroek, Assistant Secretary, Budgets and Reporting Branch, Financial Services Division 

Ms Yael Cass, First Assistant Secretary, Cabinet Division 

Mr Bruce Taloni, Assistant Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat and Implementation Branch 

National Security 

Mr Allan McKinnon, Deputy Secretary, National Security Division 

Ms HK Yu, First Assistant Secretary, International Division 

Ms Kylie Bryant, First Assistant Secretary, National Security Division 

Mr Lee Walton, First Assistant Secretary, Information Sharing and Intelligence Division 

Mr Simon Merrifield, First Assistant Secretary, Association of South East Asian Nations-Australia Special 

Summit 2018 Taskforce 

Special Adviser to the Prime Minister on Cyber Security 

Mr Alastair MacGibbon, Special Adviser to the Prime Minister on Cyber Security 

Ms Sandra Ragg, Assistant Secretary, Office of the Cyber Security Special Advisor 

Commonwealth Counter-Terrorism Coordinator 

Mr Tony Sheehan, Commonwealth Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, Independent National Security Legislation 

Monitor (Prime Minister and Cabinet Representative) 

Mr Allan McKinnon, Deputy Secretary, National Security Division 

Digital Transformation Agency 

Ms Nerida O'Loughlin, Interim Chief Executive Officer 

Mr Peter Alexander, First Assistant Secretary (Projects, Procurement and Assurance) 

Mr Jose Del Rio, First Assistant Secretary (Policy, Design, Partnerships) 

Mr Radi Kovacevic, Assistant Secretary (Enabling Services) 

Daniel Keys, Assistant Secretary (Digital and ICT Policy) 

Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security 

Output Group 1 

The Hon Margaret Stone, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security 

Mr Jake Blight, Assistant Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security 


[13.32] 

CHAIR: I welcome the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis, representing the Prime Minister, 

and officers of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 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. 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. 

The committee has set 13 April 2017 as the date by which answers to questions on notice are to be returned. 

Officers called upon for the first time to answer a question should state their name and position for the Hansard 

record and witnesses should speak clearly into the microphone. Attorney-General, do you have an opening 

statement? 

Senator Brandis: No, thank you, Mr Chairman. 

CHAIR: Ms Kelly, do you wish to make an opening statement? 

Ms Kelly: No, Chair. I would seek to table, as is our custom, the most recent copy of our organisational chart 

for the assistance of the committee. 

CHAIR: Thank you, that would be helpful. Senator Wong. 

Senator WONG: I have questions about the cabinet secretary, please. When Senator Sinodinos, in 2015, was 

appointed cabinet secretary, Mr Turnbull said: 'Senator Arthur Sinodinos will be appointed the cabinet secretary 

proposed to be reintroduced into cabinet. As I said a few days ago, it was critical that we restore traditional 

cabinet government.' My question is in relation to that statement and that appointment. Do we infer from that that 

the Prime Minister was indicating that the allocation of the cabinet secretary position to a member of the cabinet, 

as opposed to another person, was a critical aspect of restoring traditional cabinet government? 

Senator Brandis: I do not think we can infer anything. The Prime Minister's statement speaks for itself. 

Senator WONG: Was he suggesting that traditional cabinet government did not exist under Prime Minister 

Abbott? 

Senator Brandis: Senator Wong, you have quoted a statement by the Prime Minister, and I am going to 

assume that you have quoted his words accurately. 


Senator Brandis: The statement speaks for itself. You are asking either me or officials to be commentators on 

what we think the Prime Minister may have meant. Well what the Prime Minister meant was what he said. 

Senator WONG: So was traditional cabinet government in place under Mr Abbott or not? 

Senator Brandis: That is a political observation, Senator Wong. You have asked me or the officials to 

comment. 

Senator WONG: I am asking you, Senator. 

Senator Brandis: Okay. You have asked me to comment on what Mr Turnbull meant by some words that you 

have quoted. My answer is that he meant what he said. 

Senator WONG: My question to you was: was their traditional cabinet government under Mr Abbott? 

Senator Brandis: My response is that that is a political observation of yours, Senator. 

Senator WONG: Well, you are a politician. 

Senator Brandis: That is not we are here in estimates for. We are here to consider the value of estimates. 

Senator WONG: In the press conference of 18 January announcing another change to the ministry Mr 

Turnbull indicated the cabinet secretary function would return to the Prime Minister's Office. He also referenced 

that Senator Ryan would support the work of the cabinet as Minister assisting the Prime Minister in the cabinet. 

Can I first had an explanation of the respective roles of the cabinet secretary who I understand it is a staff member 

of the Prime Minister's Office. Is that right? 

Ms Kelly: He is a member employed under the MOP(S) Act. He is a staff member of the PMO. 

Senator WONG: A staff member in the PMO, a MOP(S) staffer, so this is a personal staffer not a 

departmental. 

Ms Kelly: That is correct. 

Senator WONG: Given the role can you give me the name? 

Ms Kelly: Mr Simon Atkinson. 

Senator WONG: Does Mr Simon Atkinson attend cabinet meetings? 



Ms Kelly: I will have to get some assistance from Ms Cass, First Assistant Secretary of the Cabinet Division. 

Yes, he does, Senator Wong. 

Senator WONG: Does he attend all cabinet and cabinet committee meetings? 

Ms Cass: The cabinet secretary, Simon Atkinson, attends as a note taker in cabinet meetings and cabinet 

committee meetings. 

Senator WONG: I understand that. Does he attend all cabinet committee and cabinet meetings? 

Ms Cass: I think that is the case. I will check that for you and take it on notice. 

Senator WONG: Thank you. Does Senator Ryan attend cabinet and cabinet committee meetings? 

Ms Cass: I will also take that on notice and we will come back and give you advice. 

Senator Brandis: I can answer that. Senator Ryan is in attendance at cabinet meetings. He does not always 

attend meetings of cabinet subcommittees. 

Senator WONG: Is he in attendance at all cabinet meetings even if he does not have a relevant item on the 

agenda. Does he attend as the minister assisting the Prime Minister for cabinet? 

Senator Brandis: That is my understanding of the capacity in which she attends. 

Senator WONG: Does he take notes, too, for the purposes of minutes? The role of the cabinet secretary 

would be also as what the Cabinet Handbook says, that you would look at minutes of decisions and confirm they 

are correct. Yes? I am just asking: does he have that role or is that Mr Atkinson's role? 

Ms Cass: The Cabinet Handbook, as you have referred to it, is a useful document. It needs some updating 

given the January change in positions and that is what will be done. 

Senator WONG: Sure, and I will come to that and I will give you an opportunity to talk about that Ms Cass, 

but I actually trying to understand who has the job. 

Senator Brandis: There are various note takers, Senator Wong. 

Senator WONG: I know there are various note takers, but in relation to the authorising of Cabinet minutes, 

who does that? 

Ms Cass: There are the standard three note takers from the public service: the Secretary of the Department of 

the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Cabinet Division note taker and the subject matters experts. The cabinet 

minutes are then authorised through the minister assisting and the cabinet secretary. 

Senator WONG: That is the question. So, the authorising of the minutes is a sign-off by both Senator Ryan 

and Mr Atkinson? 

Ms Cass: In consultation with the Prime Minister. 

Senator WONG: Sure, but if you get a paper trail of the process of authorising, who is the authoriser? Are 

you saying there is now a dual authorisation process? 

Ms Cass: Ultimately, I believe it is the Prime Minister. 

Senator WONG: Let's try it this way. Has Mr Atkinson ever worked for the Department of Prime Minister 

and Cabinet to your knowledge, Ms Kelly? 

Ms Kelly: He is formerly a public servant. 

Senator WONG: That was not the question. If you do not know, that is fair enough. I was asking if he worked 

for PM&C? 

Ms Kelly: Can I take that on notice? 

Senator WONG: Sure. He was Senator Cormann's chief of staff most recently, prior to becoming Cabinet 

Secretary, is that right? 

Dr Gruen: He has certainly worked in the finance department. I also do not know whether he has worked in 

the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet. He was certainly in Minister Cormann's office—I think as chief of 

staff. 

Senator WONG: Was that the position he held prior to this appointment, or was it an interim step? 

Dr Gruen: No, he has been in the Prime Minister's office before this step. 

Senator WONG: So, Senator Cormann's office, the Prime Minister's office, Cabinet Secretary is the 

sequence—is that right? 

Dr Gruen: Yes. 



Senator WONG: Can we go back to the Cabinet Handbook. I think, Ms Cass, you said it—the ninth 

edition—is needing updating. Is that right? 

Ms Cass: That is correct, because it needs to reflect the changes in positions since January of this year. 

Senator WONG: If we can go through it—I am looking at the part that says 'The Cabinet Secretary'. It says, 

'The Cabinet Secretary is appointed by the Prime Minister to manage the day-to-day procedural and operational 

matters of the Cabinet and any Cabinet committees.' Is that still the case? 

Ms Cass: That is correct. The Cabinet Secretary plays a role in facilitating traditional, sensible cabinet 

processes, some of which are listed here. We now need to go through this because this reflected a prior version of 

roles and responsibilities. 

Senator WONG: Has there been any change? I appreciate you say that it is not up to date, given the 

arrangements, but this is the document to which, presumably, unless some direction to the contrary, the Public 

Service looks for the purpose of identifying appropriate delegations. Clause 13 of the code sets out delegations 

from the Prime Minister, so apropos of your comment, Ms Cass, it is the Prime Minister who agrees—you are 

right, technically—but in practice that is delegated to the Cabinet Secretary under the Cabinet Handbook. Has 

there been any indication to the Public Service—to you—that these delegations do not remain extant in respect of 

Mr Atkinson? 

Ms Cass: This is work which is yet to be done. We have had— 

Senator WONG: That is not my question. Can you please listen to my question. I am not asking you where 

the redraft is. I am asking you about the legal basis. There are a set of delegations from the Prime Minister which 

go directly to how cabinet functions. They include: providing authority to bring forward items for consideration; 

finalising business lists for cabinet and cabinet committees; and authorising cabinet minutes, which as you would 

know, because you are a very experienced officer, is fundamental to the operation of government. All I am asking 

is: do those delegations remain in place in respect of Mr Atkinson? 

Ms Cass: I believe that these words will need a process of redrafting to reflect the role of the current Cabinet 

Secretary and the minister assisting. These delegations were drafted to apply to a prior situation. 

Senator WONG: So what is the Public Service operating under—these or some other ones that we do not 

know about? 

Ms Cass: We are operating under delegations through the Prime Minister, and these are largely accurate, but 

they need to reflect the fact now that we have a Cabinet Secretary who is a member of the Prime Minister's staff, 

so there will be some redrafting required. 

Senator WONG: I do not want to get into a form argument when I am asking a substance question. I 

appreciate that you have said this needs redrafting. So, if, as a matter of substance, there has been a change to the 

delegations as outlined here, which I think you are flagging, can you tell me how they are being communicated? 

Ms Cass: The Prime Minister has written letters to ministers advising of the appointment of the Cabinet 

Secretary. 

Senator WONG: And what do the letters say about the delegations? 

Ms Cass: I would have to take that on notice. I do not have a copy here with me. 

Senator WONG: Can we get them? Would that be possible? Have they gone to all the ministers? 

CHAIR: Senator Wong, I think she has agreed to take it on notice. 

Senator WONG: I am asking if we could have them here during the hearing. I will be asking for them, but if 

you are going to refuse that, I am going to ask you questions about them. So, is it not possible in the course— 

Senator Brandis: It may not be possible for those— 

Senator WONG: Can I just finish. Just so Ms Cass is clear. I would like to ask questions about them. If they 

are letters that have gone to the entire executive, I would not have thought they would be difficult to retrieve. 

Senator Brandis: Senator Wong, I was merely going to say that it may or may not be appropriate to produce 

these letters. We would have to consider them, for obvious reasons, because they may deal with matters that are 

not ordinarily the subject of disclosure to parliamentary committees. 

Senator WONG: But if they are changes to public delegations which are contained in the handbook, which is 

a public document, what I would say to you is that is a really reasonable request. 

Senator Brandis: If that is all they are, I think you are right. 



Senator WONG: Well, that is the bit I want to know about at the moment. Have the delegations changed and 

if so how? 

Ms Kelly: Senator Wong, in fairness to Ms Cass, she has only been in the role for a number of weeks and was 

not actually in the role when the changes were made on 18 January. 

Senator WONG: You have been around a long time, Ms Kelly, you know everything. 

Ms Kelly: I just make that comment in fairness to Ms Cass, Senator Wong. 

Senator WONG: I am asking you then. You are the deputy secretary in charge of this section. Surely you 

must be able to tell us if the delegations in the Cabinet Handbook have changed and if so how? 

Ms Kelly: I cannot add anything to the answer that Ms Cass has given. 

Senator WONG: Have the delegations changed. Do you know that? 

Ms Kelly: I cannot add anything to the answer that Ms Cass has given—namely, that the Cabinet Handbook 

will be updated. The Cabinet Handbook is regularly updated. 

Senator WONG: Ms Kelly, that is not my question. Please, let's not answer a question I did not ask. Let's 

answer the question I asked, and there is a public interest in this because this goes directly to how cabinet 

government is managed. These are important questions—what the government of the day decides should be 

decided, should be even discussed and the nature of the decision. I would just like to know, as deputy secretary of 

PM&C, do you think the delegations have changed? 

Ms Kelly: I am not aware of whether the delegations have changed. As I have said, the cabinet is operating 

under the new arrangements, and we will take steps to update the Cabinet Handbook to reflect those. 

Senator WONG: Where are the new arrangements articulated? 

Ms Kelly: I am not aware that the new arrangements are articulated outside the letter that Ms Cass has referred 

to. 

Senator WONG: Ms Cass, can you tell me who drafted the letter? Did you sign off on that draft, Ms Kelly? 

Ms Kelly: I am not aware of who drafted the letter. I have seen a copy of the letter, but I am not aware of 

where it was drafted. 

Senator WONG: To whom is the letter? 

Ms Kelly: The letter was to cabinet ministers is my recollection. 

Senator WONG: Okay, so just to cabinet ministers. 

Ms Kelly: That is my recollection. 

Senator WONG: From the Prime Minister? 

Ms Kelly: Yes. 

Senator WONG: And approximately when was it sent? 

Ms Kelly: Obviously since 18 January, but I cannot be much more precise than that. 

Senator WONG: Was it within a week or so of the new cabinet, or are we talking just recently—last week or 

so? I am just trying to get a sense of how close to the swearing in it was. 

Ms Cass: We will need to take that on notice. I will endeavour to try to get a copy— 

Senator WONG: I would appreciate that. 

Ms Cass: and we will be able to provide you with an answer; hopefully, as soon as possible. Let us go and 

find it. 

Senator WONG: So you will take that on notice and I will appreciate it if you can come back to me. What is 

actually happening at the moment? Who is authorising? Leaving aside for the moment what the letter says, can 

you tell me who is actually providing authority for ministers to bring items forward and who is finalising the 

cabinet list? Is that Senator Ryan or Mr Atkinson? 

Ms Cass: The cabinet secretary plays a role in helping to finalise the cabinet lists. That is done in consultation 

with the Prime Minister. It is ultimately the authority of the Prime Minister that is called upon. 

Senator WONG: Is Senator Ryan in the loop of those two questions? Is he part of that process or not? 

Ms Cass: Senator Ryan also plays a significant role in making sure that traditional cabinet process is followed 

in taking notes and ensuring that there is quality material coming to cabinet. 



Senator WONG: Two specific delegations: firstly, in substance, who is authorising minister's to bring items 

forward? Is that by letter from Mr Atkinson, by letter from Mr Ryan or only by letter from the Prime Minister? 

Secondly, who is authorising cabinet minutes. 

Ms Cass: Both the assistant minister for cabinet and the cabinet secretary are reviewing cabinet minutes. 

Senator WONG: Do some go to one and some to the other or do both of them look at all of them? Is there a 

portfolio split or do each have a look at each of the draft minutes. 

Ms Cass: In order to be accurate, it is best if I take that on notice and we come back to you. 

Senator HINCH: Senator Brandis, on Monday, November 28, you made that explanatory statement to the 

Senate about the Bell issue which went on for some time. I am wondering if I could take you back to it. You had 

talked to Ms O'Dwyer on Monday 7 March— 

Senator Brandis: Senator Hinch, I do not mean to cut you off but these are not questions for the Department 

of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I am here only in my capacity on behalf of the Prime Minister for the 

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. We have Legal and Constitutional Affairs estimates tomorrow. 

My department, the Attorney-General's Department, had an involvement in the Bell matter. I do not want to be 

pedantic but I think I should make this point to you: if those questions were to be asked in legal and cons 

estimates then that would be perfectly appropriate, but they are just not appropriate to be asked here. 

Senator HINCH: I accept that and I withdraw. Thank you, chair. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: I have questions for the Office of Best Practice Regulation. Do we have the right 

people here? If you can get them—thank you. At a previous estimates, I asked how you advised the Department 

of Education and Training that their regulation impact statement on the proposal for the VET FEE-HELP scheme 

was compliant with the government requirements and that regulatory costs had been agreed with the OBPR. Do 

you recall that? 

Dr Kennedy: Yes. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: Good. I was a little bemused because the proposal involved micromanagement of 

the VET sector but the regulatory impact statement said it would reduce regulatory costs. You explained that the 

RIS only covered the red tape costs and not the economic costs from micromanaging the VET sector, which 

would end up diverting resources from where people want them to be. My follow-up question is this: what is the 

value of a RIS, and the OBPR that assesses a RIS, if it gives a tick to a proposal with substantial economic cost, 

when you only look at a narrow range of red-tape issues? 

Dr Kennedy: I will make a couple of remarks, and then I will ask my colleague, Tanja Cvijanovic, to 

comment on the specific details of that RIS. There are two issues running here. One is the regulatory impact 

analysis, the RIS itself, which is a process through which we are asking the relevant department bringing a 

proposal forward to ensure that it has gone through a reasonable policy process to see it has identified alternatives 

and it has looked at the cost of those alternatives. It is, in other words, to ensure that it has gone through a quality 

process in reviewing the advice that comes forward to government about the regulatory cost of that proposal. 

The red-tape regulatory costing process is a separate and additional process that was introduced by this 

government some time ago—I will get my colleague to elaborate—which costs the transaction element, the redtape 

element, that you were talking about a moment ago. In other words, it is costing, in particular, the time of a 

business in complying with the regulation. But the regulatory red-tape cost is not a cost of, in a sense, the 

underlying value of the regulation—is it reasonable that this regulation is put in place because it diverts resources, 

in a general sense?—which is often referred to as the economic or opportunity cost of the regulation. That is 

addressed in the RIS process, but it is not part of the regulatory costings. I can see you are looking a little 

confused. I hope I have not confused you in that answer. I will just get my colleague to elaborate, if you do not 

mind, through the specific example, and then we will come back. 

Ms Cvijanovic: Some RISs include detailed cost-benefit analysis, and some do not. Sometimes it is hard to 

quantify the economic costs and benefits of various measures. You might be able to qualify those, but you might 

not actually be able to quantify the opportunity cost of some measures. The regulatory burden measurement 

framework is a proxy for, as Dr Kennedy said, the compliance cost of business or community groups in 

complying with government rules, at the end of the day. There are some RISs that include a cost-benefit analysis, 

and there are some RISs that do not include it because of the difficulty in actually quantifying some of those 

measures. But they should all have a qualitative assessment of the impacts of providers and various people in the 

community. 



Senator LEYONHJELM: So, to the extent that there is an economic cost, whose costs are taken into 

account? Are costs to government or costs to those being regulated taken into account? I see you nodding. Are 

you agreeing that both are taken into account? 

Ms Cvijanovic: That is right. In the regulatory burden measurement framework tool that we had, it is the cost 

on business. For example, it is the cost of complying with business. A business might have some forms that they 

have to fill out, and so you look at the population that is affected to fill out those forms and make an estimate on 

the amount of time it takes to fill out the required paperwork, and that is how the regulatory measurement 

framework is used. It is a price and quantity, but it is a population-time estimate of the administrative burden on a 

business or a community group that has to comply with government regulation. 

Dr Kennedy: In addition, if, as Tanja identified a moment ago, we have a RIS that is able to capture the 

broader benefits and costs of something to a community, say it is a regulation around vehicles or some regulation 

around fuel standards or whatever it may be, there may be an attempt to try and capture not only the full benefits 

to the broader population of this regulation but also the full cost—the fact that providers may be negatively 

affected or that compliance may arise. That is a benefit-cost calculation that is going beyond what I call the 

transaction cost, or the cost of complying. When we talk about the red-tape arrangements we are largely talking 

about that cost of doing business around the regulation and not that broader benefit-cost calculation, which you 

were referring to earlier and which—as my colleague has said—is done in some but not all cases. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: I am not particularly concerned about the details of that particular proposal 

because I ended up voting for it anyway, so I am trying to understand why you give it a tick and your thinking 

here. You did say that the RIS only covered the red-tape costs and not the economic costs, and then you just said 

that you do take economic costs into account. This proposal, the VET-FEE HELP scheme proposal, had direct 

consequences on those being regulated: suppliers in that education sector. There would have been compliance 

costs. 


Senator LEYONHJELM: There would have been quite significant compliance costs and there would have 

been supervisory costs as well. Did you take them into account? 

Ms Cvijanovic: With the VET-FEE HELP, the costs that we took into account are related to the 

administration of the scheme. The savings were largely derived from a more streamlined application process for 

providers, a reduction in the number of audits that the providers had to undertake for the new scheme and 

exemption from some literacy and numeracy testing for students. Those were the costs that derived that costing. 

Dr Kennedy: In other words, Senator, it is the types of costs you just spoke about. It is that cost of complying 

and undertaking their business in the light of the regulation. But that calculation is not a reflection on a calculation 

that says: 'What if we did not have this regulation at all?' versus 'We now have this regulation.' That much broader 

benefit-cost calculation that I am referring to is sometimes in a RIS. Think of these as two separate pieces of 

advice coming forward. There is the regulatory impact statement—the regulatory impact analysis—which often 

contains a benefit-cost calculation and which is typically focussed on the broader community benefits and the 

broader community and business costs of that regulation, and there is what we call the regulatory framework that 

my colleague was talking about, which is the newer piece that has just been around for the last few years and is 

focussing in on: I now have another form I need to fill in but I do not have to fill in another form. It is trying to 

calculate just simply that it costs a person of this capability an hour every second week—that type of calculation. 

That type of calculation gives you some insight to the cost to the business, but, to be clear—and you would 

understand this through your own inquiry that you are undertaking—it is not a full estimate of that broader 

benefit-cost calculation. 

Ms Cvijanovic: The regulatory burden measurement framework is a transaction cost calculator, at the end of 

the day. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: I guess it depends on how that regulatory burden is defined. I am assuming, then, 

you would never look at what amounts to a counterfactual—the impact pre-regulation and post-regulation? 

Dr Kennedy: The counterfactual exercise is undertaken through the RIS process itself. When they write that 

regulatory impact statement, for a quality RIS impact, it should compare a no-change case and a variety of cases, 

and then try to tease out that broader benefit-cost calculation in the face of no regulation, very little regulation, 

more regulation—that type of calculation. That should be, ideally, if it is able to be calculated—sometimes it is 

very difficult to get a sense of these costs and benefits—in the regulatory impact statement itself. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: I am still perplexed as to the answer I got in relation to the VET FEE-HELP one, 

where you explained that it only covered the red-tape costs and not the economic costs from managing the VET 



sector. I am still somewhat perplexed, though thank you for your previous answers. Unless you have anything 

more to add on that specific point, I will probably drop it there. 

Dr Kennedy: Senator, if it helps—I have not got it in front of me—I will go back and review the answer and 

see if I can provide some further clarification. I am happy to follow up. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: Thank you. 

Senator McALLISTER: I will follow on from where Senator Leyonhjelm left off. I am looking for an update 

on the status of the deregulation agenda. 

Dr Kennedy: We are continuing to run the regulatory impact statement process— 

Senator McALLISTER: This is a longstanding aspect— 

Dr Kennedy: Exactly. It has been around for quite long time. We are looking, as we always are, at trying to 

continue to improve it and do reforms, but at this stage it runs as it has been outlined, and we discuss those often 

with the relevant minister. 

Senator McALLISTER: But who is the relevant minister? 

Dr Kennedy: Assistant Minister McGrath is the regulatory minister. We are also continuing to do the 

calculations that I was just discussing with Senator Leyonhjelm around the transaction costs or regulatory burden 

framework that was introduced by this government. Then, in addition, there are two or three other streams of 

work that I will quickly mention. Maybe my colleagues would like to follow up. 

Through the Treasurer, particularly around the Harper review, there is a set of work going on around how to 

improve the regulatory environment, particularly the way it intersects with the state regulatory environment. 

There is also some work going on inside the industry department, being led by Assistant Minister Laundy, on the 

Business Simplification Initiative. In both cases I would address the specific questions to those areas. On business 

simplification, I can point out that there is a pilot running looking at trying to significantly simplify business 

registration processes, particularly the business registration processes between the states and local government 

and the Commonwealth government. Minister Laundy or his department would be in a position to talk about 

those. 

Senator McALLISTER: That is all quite useful. So there are these three additional streams. 

Dr Kennedy: I just want to check whether there is anything else. There are other things going on, but that 

probably captures most of them. 

Senator McALLISTER: Thank you. There was the deregulation agenda that was very firmly centred in 

Prime Minister and Cabinet. I think it was renamed by Prime Minister Turnbull to be the regulatory reform 

agenda. Is that correct? 


Senator McALLISTER: Is that agenda still on foot? 


Senator McALLISTER: Back in December 2013 the government had decided that the economic impact of 

the deregulation agenda would be assessed within three years. 

Dr Kennedy: That is correct. 

Senator McALLISTER: Has that happened? What is the status of that? 

Dr Kennedy: That assessment is still being discussed with the government, and the government has not taken 

a decision to publish an assessment at this stage. 

Senator McALLISTER: Has any work being done on it to prepare it for publication? 

Dr Kennedy: We are discussing how one would go about assessing that. It also came out of an ANAO audit 

report, so we are in discussions with government about how one would go about discussing that. 

Senator McALLISTER: So it is running a little behind time, we would have to concede. It was to be assessed 

within three years. It is 2017, and the assessment has not only not been published but in fact a methodology for 

undertaking the assessment has not been settled. Is that correct? 

Dr Kennedy: We are discussing the assessment with government, and it is the government's decision when it 

will publish an assessment. 

Senator McALLISTER: Have you made a recommendation about a methodology? 

Dr Kennedy: Typically we would not go into exactly where we are up to, but I am happy to inform you— 



Senator WONG: We can ask you questions about processing dates. This is a question about what was 

provided when to government. Why don't we go back to that? Have you provided advice as to the methodology 

that the senator is asking about? 

Dr Kennedy: As I said earlier, we are discussing all aspects of the assessment with the government. 

Senator McALLISTER: When was the last time you had a discussion with the government, and can you 

clarify who is part of this discussion? 

Dr Kennedy: I had a discussion with Minister Sinodinos and his staff—I will have to take on notice the 

precise date—and I have yet to update that discussion with Assistant Minister McGrath. 

Senator WONG: So this was when Senator Sinodinos held the portfolio? 

Dr Kennedy: Correct. 

Senator WONG: Do I infer from that that you have not yet had a discussion with your current assistant 

minister, the former parliamentary secretary, about the methodology? 

Dr Kennedy: No, I have not. 

Senator WONG: Has there been a formal decision to resile from the decision of December 2013? 

Dr Kennedy: No, there has not. 

Senator WONG: So it is just in abeyance, waiting for someone to decide whether you are actually going to do 

it. 

Dr Kennedy: As I said earlier, it is a matter for government about when it chooses to publish the assessment, 

how it goes about that and— 

Senator WONG: Has the assessment been done? 

Dr Kennedy: We have considered how one would go about undertaking that assessment and how one would 

go about publishing it. Where the government would like to go on that is a matter for the minister, and we are yet 

to have an opportunity to discuss it with him. 

Senator McALLISTER: Three years is quite a long time to establish a methodology to answer a question that 

was proposed in 2013. Have you previously provided advice to previous ministers about the best way to measure 

progress? 

Dr Kennedy: I would have to take that on notice to have a look at whether predecessors have provided advice 

on that. 

Senator McALLISTER: There is an official website around cutting red tape. When was the last time that was 

updated? 

Ms Cvijanovic: I would have to take the specific time frame on notice. We do make revisions to the website 

on a reasonably frequent basis, but I would have to take on notice specifically when it was updated. 

Senator McALLISTER: When you say 'reasonably frequent', is that every three months? Every six months? 

Ms Cvijanovic: I see new posts every couple of months, as a general rule. We also run the OBPR website and 

that is updated as required. The OBPR website is updated weekly, I am advised. 

Senator McALLISTER: But for the cutting red tape and regulation website you cannot tell me? 

Ms Cvijanovic: Less frequently, so I would have to take that on notice. 

Senator McALLISTER: Were portfolios allocated red tape targets for 2016? 

Ms Cvijanovic: Yes, they have been for 2016. 

Senator McALLISTER: What is the nature of those targets? 

Ms Cvijanovic: I am not sure. 

Senator McALLISTER: How are they described? What kinds of targets are we talking about? 

Ms Cvijanovic: Portfolios would be allocated a numeric target of net red tape reduction that they needed to 

achieve within the portfolio for 2016. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is it a dollar figure? Is it a number of words? 

Ms Cvijanovic: It is a dollar figure. 

Senator McALLISTER: What is the aggregate value of the targets that were allocated for 2016? 

Ms Cvijanovic: I would have to take the specifics of that on notice. 

Senator McALLISTER: So we do not know what the government's economic goal was for 2016? 



Ms Cvijanovic: The goal is a net billion-dollar reduction in red tape. The specifics of the allocations I do not 

have on hand at the moment. We do have that information. I expect in 2016 the allocation was above a billion 

dollars to ensure that the target was met. 

Senator McALLISTER: Do we know if the target was met? 

Ms Cvijanovic: In 2016, yes. 

Senator WONG: 'Yes, we know,' or 'Yes, the target was met,' or 'Yes, to both'? 

Ms Cvijanovic: Yes, we know. And, yes, the target was met. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is there any intention to publish information about that process? 

Ms Cvijanovic: We generally publish an annual report on red-tape reduction. The last annual report was 

published in March 2016, and that sets out the specific measures of both the regulatory cost savings and 

regulatory costs. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is there a plan to publish in 2017? 

Ms Cvijanovic: Yes, there is. 

Senator McALLISTER: When should we expect that? 

Ms Cvijanovic: We are intending to go to a financial year basis. Previously the target was done on a calendar 

year basis. We are intending to going to a financial year basis and we expect it will be reported sometime after 

June this year. 

Senator McALLISTER: Has that been publicly announced at any time previous to this? 

Ms Cvijanovic: Not as far as I am aware. 

Senator McALLISTER: So this is the first time we are letting the public know that this agenda is being 

pushed back for six months in terms of the reporting. 

Ms Cvijanovic: No, it is not being pushed back for six months. It is about public reporting. We have reporting 

that occurs fairly regularly, but we are just trying to align it on a financial year basis rather than a calendar year 

basis. Agencies have told us that it will be easier for them to report if it is more closely aligned to their public 

reporting requirements. 

Senator WONG: On the economic impact assessment, you gave a very general answer, but we have been 

discussing it. I would like to know the number of times you have provided written advice to your minister setting 

out the issues requiring decision in respect of methodology and assessment. 

Dr Kennedy: I would have to take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Have you ever provided it to Senator Sinodinos? 

Dr Kennedy: I personally have discussed it with— 

Senator WONG: Vous not tu—so, the department, all of you. 

Dr Kennedy: I will have to take on notice whether we have provided written advice. Certainly we had a 

couple of discussions about how we would go about this. It goes back to the earlier issues we were discussing 

about how one would move from understanding what the full economic costs were from what was a transaction 

cost calculation mechanism—that is the tricky bit, frankly, in the methodology—and coming up with that 

assessment. But one can do that assessment, at least qualitatively. 

Senator WONG: I am just trying to get a time frame, Dr Kennedy. 

Dr Kennedy: About when? 

Senator WONG: About how many times ministers have been advised about options. 

Dr Kennedy: I came into my role in April of last year and I had a discussion with Minister Sinodinos once the 

government was returned. That is probably all I can tell you now, here in front of you, but I can go back and look 

on notice about the pattern of written advice that happened before me around this issue. 

Senator WONG: What about after that? After your first conversation with Senator Sinodinos after he had 

been given this, was any written advice provided—like a decision brief setting out 'You need to tell us', broad 

options or 'You need to make some decisions about these things'? 

Dr Kennedy: I will have to take that on notice. I cannot recall here. 

Senator WONG: I appreciate that. Thank you. 



Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: My questions are on quite a different topic. It is in relation to decisions 

around sitting days and estimate dates and publishing them in the sitting calendar. Have I got the right people here 

to answer those questions? 

Ms Kelly: We hope so. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: We will see. 

Senator Brandis: It depends what the questions are. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: It might be Christopher Pyne we need here! 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Specifically in my mind I am thinking of the consideration of crossportfolio 

Indigenous matters, which generally over the past few years have been held on a Friday in additional 

and supplementary estimates. Just to give a little bit of background, I understand that consideration of crossportfolio 

Indigenous matters started following a recommendation of the community affairs committee in 2008- 

2009, where it was established it was just too difficult for senators to navigate various committees to ask 

questions on this. But something that I have noticed that is of concern to me is the fact that on the official sitting 

calendar, the Fridays following additional estimates weeks and supplementary estimates weeks are blank, and so 

it appears there is no consideration of anything in estimates that day, let alone matters as significant as those 

affecting Indigenous Australians and spending concerning them. I am curious to know that why is. Why is it not 

included on the official sitting calendar for the Senate? 

Senator Brandis: I do not know the answer to that question. I do not know who puts that calendar together. I 

do not think it is PM&C, is it? 

Ms E Kelly: Mr Rush. 

Senator Brandis: Mr Rush? Somebody knows; I do not. 

Mr Rush: I am afraid I may not know the answer to that question. The department certainly assists in putting 

together the published calendar, but the construction of the calendar is coordinated by the Prime Minister's office 

in collaboration with the chambers, and in particular the leaders and managers of business in both chambers. I do 

not know the answer to the specific question about Fridays. We have to take that on notice. 

Senator Brandis: I have always understood that this is primarily a matter that the manager of government 

business has the lead responsibility for, but in collaboration with the Prime Minister's office and perhaps with the 

Senate President's office. As to your point, Senator Kakoschke-Moore, that the cross-portfolio Indigenous 

questions are not shown as a specific estimates day in the calendar, I must confess I have never noticed that 

before, but I suspect you are right. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Thank you for your advice. From here on, should I be speaking perhaps 

with the President of the Senate and the manager of government business so that we can look to rectify this? It 

does seem to me that it is quite a gap. 

Senator Brandis: Yes, I think that would be quite fruitful. Ultimately, the President of the Senate is 

responsible for the business of the Senate, and that includes the sitting program. In a functional sense, I think the 

manager of government business is, as I said a moment ago, the person with the primary responsibility. There is 

certainly no reason why that Friday should not be marked in the calendar as an estimates day. Perhaps when the 

custom of the cross-portfolio Indigenous estimates was introduced some years ago, those who prepare the 

calendar did not turn their mind to the question, but I am glad you have. 

Senator WONG: I had some questions in relation to the department's role in organising the Prime Minister's 

call with President Trump. Did the department play a role in organising the call? 

Mr McKinnon: The answer is no, PM&C did not. 

Senator WONG: How did you become aware of the call? 

Mr McKinnon: I cannot quite recall. Are you talking about the first call, on 10 November? 

Senator WONG: No, January. I am sorry; I did reference the January call. 

Mr McKinnon: I beg your pardon. We may have been asked for some briefing on certain topics—I cannot 

recall—but we knew that it was happening. 

Senator WONG: So you knew about the January call before it was happening, but you did not have a role in 

setting it up? 

Mr McKinnon: No, I think it was done directly, but I would like to confirm that. I do not think we had any 

role in mechanically connecting numbers. It was all there. 



Senator WONG: Did you liaise with Mr Trump's team? 

Mr McKinnon: I think that was done within the PM's office, but I would like to confirm that. 

Senator WONG: Similarly, with the November call, I think we previously understood that PM&C had no role 

in setting that up either. 

Mr McKinnon: That is right. 

Senator WONG: But you recall that you were asked for some briefing in relation to the January call ahead of 

the call. Is that right? 

Mr McKinnon: Yes, we did provide a briefing. 

Senator WONG: Was that the first occasion on which you became aware that the call was proceeding? 

Mr McKinnon: I would like to check that. It was a while ago and I do not recall in what sequence we heard 

that the call was occurring and what exactly went before it or after it. 

Senator WONG: Can you tell me what day the call in fact took place? 

Mr McKinnon: I would have to check that. I have a funny feeling that it was on the weekend, but that could 

be completely erroneous. I think the day was 29 January, and 26 January was a Thursday, so I think it was a 

Sunday. 

Senator WONG: I am going to ask some questions about this, so would it be better for me to come back to 

you after you have had the opportunity to get whoever you need to get here? 

Mr McKinnon: Okay, I would appreciate that. 

Senator WONG: The White House issued the readout dated 28 January. 

Mr McKinnon: It was a Sunday—the Attorney has confirmed it. 

Senator WONG: The White House issued the readout of the call dated 28 January, but that may have been 

the time difference. 

Senator Brandis: It may have been the 28th in Washington. 

Senator WONG: Yes, that is what I am saying; it might have been the time difference. 

Mr McKinnon: I will just call my colleague HK Yu, who looks after the International Division, who I hope 

will have more detail. 


Ms Yu: The call did take place on 28 January, which was a Sunday. We did know about the call proceeding, 

but we had no role in organising the call. That was actually done directly from the Prime Minister's office with 

their counterparts, I believe, but we do not have the details of how they organised the call. 

Senator WONG: That is fine. Do you know what time the call was? 

Ms Yu: The call was to proceed on Sunday, and it was actually in the morning. Can I just confirm that, please. 

Senator WONG: Sure. Are you going to confirm that with someone now, or are you asking me to come back 

later? What would you like me to do? 

Ms Yu: I can confirm that. 

Senator WONG: I will breathe for a minute—or not hold my breath. Do you want me to proceed with other 

questions? 

Mr McKinnon: Senator, if you would care to continue. I might just put them on notice as well. 

Senator WONG: I think she is getting some information by email. How was the November call set up? 

Mr McKinnon: What angle are you pursuing there? Are you talking about the logistics of making the 

telephone connection? 


Mr McKinnon: I think it was rung from his office into the White House. 

Senator WONG: The November call? 

Mr McKinnon: Yes. 

Senator WONG: It would not have been the White House. He had not taken office. 



Mr McKinnon: That is right; I beg your pardon. There were connections already made with the Trump 

transition team. That was done, of course, through the embassy separately, but there were other connections held 

in Canberra, and I think that Ambassador Hockey had a role in facilitating the call on 10 November. 

Senator WONG: Can you step that out a little more. 

Mr McKinnon: My understanding is that Ambassador Hockey actually had the correct telephone number to 

ring, and the call was made from the Prime Minister's office. That was obviously organised, in terms of timing, 

and the call suited both parties— 

Senator WONG: So, Ambassador Hockey had the mobile number of the President-elect, as he was then? 

Mr McKinnon: That is right. Sorry—his office's mobile number, if not his direct number; the number to 

contact him on. 

Senator WONG: Have you been advised as to how Ambassador Hockey got that number? 

Mr McKinnon: I have not personally been advised, but I have seen media reports that Greg Norman had it. 

He was playing golf with the President-elect and he is part of the greater Australian network of diplomats, so he 

passed the number to Ambassador Hockey, who passed it back to us. 

Senator WONG: So Greg Norman gave Joe Hockey, and from Mr Hockey to Mr Turnbull, Mr Trump's 

phone number as a personal favour. Is that how it works? 

Mr McKinnon: A personal favour—you can term it that. It is just facilitating it. 

Ms Yu: Apologies again—it was just a bit vague because of the time difference, but the call went ahead 

Sunday morning our time. We do not actually have the exact time—PM&C does not have the exact time because 

we were not present for the call. However, we did get a confirmation that the call had gone through at around 11 

AM or 12 PM on Sunday. 

Senator WONG: Do you have any confirmation as to how long the call lasted? 

Ms Yu: No, we do not. 

Senator WONG: What was the nature of the confirmation? Did you get a— 

Ms Yu: We just checked via email with an adviser whether the call had gone through, and the adviser had 

informed us 'yes'. 

Senator WONG: So the adviser confirmed that. I think you have answered my next question, which is: were 

PM&C officials on the call or in the office when the call was made? 

Ms Yu: No, we were not. 

Senator WONG: Were there any public service officials with the Prime Minister when the call was made? 

Ms Yu: I cannot confirm that for sure, but certainly no-one from my division or from PM&C. 

Senator WONG: So who took notes of the call? 

Ms Yu: I would have thought there probably would have been an adviser present, but I cannot confirm that 

either. 

Senator WONG: Perhaps the minister representing could take on notice whether notes were taken by an 

adviser? 

Senator Brandis: Sorry, the question is: the Prime Minister had this call on 29 January—one of his advisers 

took notes of the call? 

Senator WONG: And, were notes taken? 

Senator Brandis: Yes. I understand. Do you want me to take that on notice? 

Senator WONG: Do you know? 

Senator Brandis: No, I do not. 

Senator WONG: Then I suppose you have to take that on notice. 

Mr McKinnon: A moment ago you were talking about a 10 November call. Is that the call you are asking 

about, or is it the one in January? 

Senator WONG: Ms Yu and I know where we are! Just ask her, Mr McKinnon, and you'll be all right! 

Mr McKinnon: I will ask her. 

Senator WONG: We are in January. Ms Yu, at any point has the Prime Minister's office provided PM&C 

with detail as to the content of the conversation? 



Ms Yu: No. 

Senator WONG: Was a readout of the call issued? Was a readout of the call prepared? 

Ms Yu: The readout of the call was not prepared, no—no document. 

Senator WONG: So there is no documentation at an official level in relation to the call? 

Ms Yu: No. 

Senator WONG: The White House released a readout of the call. Are you aware of that? 

Ms Yu: Yes. 

Senator WONG: Was there any consultation with the Australian government prior to that readout being 

issued? 

Ms Yu: Not at the officials level. 

Senator WONG: Are you aware of any consultation? 

Ms Yu: No, I am not aware. 

Senator WONG: I think you have answered this: so no details of the call were recorded by a departmental 

official during or after the call? Is that correct? Would you like me to repeat the question? 

Ms Yu: Yes. 

Senator WONG: I think you have answered this, but just to confirm: no details of the call were recorded—I 

don't mean tape-recorded but recorded in terms of writing—by a departmental official during or after the call? Is 

that correct? 

Ms Yu: Yes. 

Senator WONG: And you have not seen any notes from a political staffer? 

Ms Yu: No, I have not. 

Senator WONG: Were any photographs taken of the Prime Minister while he was on the call? 

Ms Yu: I am not aware of any, no. 

Senator WONG: Is it usual for a prime ministerial call to foreign leaders to have officials recording the 

content of the conversation? 

Ms Yu: It really depends on the circumstance. If it is possible, yes, we often have officials present to take a 

record of the conversation. Many calls go ahead without an official in the room, sometimes for logistical reasons 

and timing issues. 

Senator WONG: This was a call on a Sunday from Canberra or Sydney, correct? 

Ms Yu: The Prime Minister was in Sydney at the time so it made it, logistically, a little bit difficult, especially 

when the calls were arranged over the weekend. 

Senator WONG: Were you asked to have an officer in attendance? 

Ms Yu: No, we were not. 

Senator WONG: Is it usual or commonplace for a readout of the Prime Minister's calls to foreign leaders to 

be produced? 

Ms Yu: When you say 'readout' certainly a record of conversation. 

Senator WONG: Sorry, a record of conversation. 

Ms Yu: Yes, for more formal engagements, but once again it is not a 100 per cent occurrence. 

Senator WONG: With respect, are you suggesting that the first call between a newly inaugurated President 

and the Prime Minister is not a formal occasion? 

Ms Yu: I guess I was referring more to standard annual leaders meetings where there are extended, preorganised 

arrangements and for those, obviously, there would be a proper record of conversation, but there are 

other times where a much quicker record of conversation can be arranged. 

Senator WONG: When Senator Brandis has finished talking to his staffer I would like to know who was in 

the room when the call was made. 

Senator Brandis: Yes, I can take that question on notice. 

Senator WONG: And I have asked you what notes were taken and I asked— 

Senator Brandis: No, I thought you asked me whether notes were taken. 



Senator WONG: Yes. I am asking, if those notes were taken, have they been provided to any member of the 

public service? Have they been provided to DFAT, have they been provided to PM&C? 

Senator Brandis: Why don't I take on notice the question: if notes were taken, to which officials they were 

provided? 

Senator WONG: And if not, why not. 

Senator Brandis: Okay. 

Senator WONG: I am happy to cede to someone else. 

CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Rhiannon. 

Senator RHIANNON: I have some issues to deal with on the Prime Minister's statement of ministerial 

standards. I wanted to ask about the Prime Minister's statement of ministerial standards, Minister, and the coolingoff 

period for former ministers during which they are not allowed to lobby the government. 

Senator Brandis: Yes. 

Senator RHIANNON: Are you aware of the order of continuing effect adopted by the Senate on 23 

November last year? 


Senator RHIANNON: Now the order, as we know, is called order no. 20(c) and it states that each minister 

must table a record of all meetings between former ministers, who are within the cooling-off period, and current 

ministers or senior officials. 

Senator Brandis: That is a paraphrase, that is not actually what it says. 

Senator RHIANNON: Are you saying what I have just said is inaccurate? 

Senator Brandis: No, I am saying it is a paraphrase. 

Senator Wong interjecting— 

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you, and I acknowledge the help that I am getting from Senator Wong. 

Senator Brandis: I am just saying, Senator Rhiannon, that you have not been reading from the document. 

Senator RHIANNON: I have limited time. This is regularly your style, Attorney-General, that you go in for 

the attack to try to disrupt. Let me ask the question. 

Senator Brandis: I am sorry, Senator Rhiannon, I just want it to be clear that what you have put on the record 

is not a direct quotation. I have the document in front of me. I just want it to be clear from the record, as I think 

you acknowledge, that what you have just said is not a direct quote from the document. 

Senator RHIANNON: I did not say it was a direct quote. 

Senator Brandis: That is fine, as long as— 

Senator RHIANNON: Since your department is responsible for the statement of ministerial standards, are 

you aware if other departments or agencies are complying with the order? 

Senator Brandis: No. 

Senator RHIANNON: So you are not aware or they are not complying? What does the 'no' mean? 

Senator Brandis: You have asked me if I am aware. 

Senator RHIANNON: So you are not aware? 

Senator Brandis: Correct. 

Senator RHIANNON: Isn't that part of your job to know, and do you just need to take it on notice or is it not 

something you give attention to? 

Senator Brandis: I will take it on notice if you wish me to. Are you asking me to take it on notice? 

Senator RHIANNON: No, I am asking you, with the staff here, if you can supply that information now. 

Senator Brandis: Well, I can't, but, if you want, I will take on notice the question:— 

Senator RHIANNON: Okay, if you can take it on notice, please. 

Senator Brandis: what departments and agencies are compliant with this order. 

Senator RHIANNON: Does your department comply with the order? 

Senator Brandis: I will have to take that on notice as well. 

Senator RHIANNON: Seriously, you do not know if your department complies with the order? 



Senator Brandis: Senator, you thought I was being pedantic but I am not actually. There are complexities to 

this order, so it is not quite as simple as you are representing to the committee. 

Senator RHIANNON: At the end of the day it is about keeping a list of meetings and supplying it. Surely, 

when you turn up to estimates that is something that you would have in one of your folders. We are talking about 

vested interests. 

Senator Brandis: The government is considering this order. I can tell you, if this helps—and I hope it does— 

that an issue has arisen in relation to it. Again, this is why I wanted it to be clear that what you had said was a 

paraphrase, not the actual terms of the order. There is an issue about the extent to which the order imposes 

obligations on House of Representatives ministers. I understand that the Clerk of the House of Representatives 

has provided advice that an order of the Senate cannot bind House of Representatives ministers. In view of that, 

consideration is being given by government to how, or whether, this order can or should be complied with. 

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you for that clarification. But we still have ministers in the Senate and surely 

they are still bound by it? 

Senator Brandis: That is an interesting question, to which the answer is not necessarily yes—for this reason. 

The order purports to apply to all ministers: Senate ministers and House of Representatives ministers. There is 

advice that it is incapable of applying or binding most ministers, so the question then would be whether the 

obligation in relation to Senate ministers is severable from the obligation that the order purports to impose on 

House of Representatives ministers. That is by no means clear. 

Senator RHIANNON: Are you aware that at least one minister has actually reported on— 

Senator Brandis: I have heard that. 

Senator RHIANNON: That is Senator Birmingham? 

Senator Brandis: I have heard that. 

Senator RHIANNON: Is that the only one you have heard about? Have you heard about any others? 

Senator Brandis: I have not. 

Senator RHIANNON: Considering that there are vested interests—millions of dollars—that come into this 

place to lobby, is this not going to be a bad look if the government is using what some many people might see as 

semantics to get out of reporting? 

Senator Brandis: It is not a question of semantics; it is a question of what the order means. The only advice 

that I am aware of, although I have not read it—but I have been told about it—that exists in relation to this order 

is apparently that it is not capable of applying to House of Representatives ministers. That, as I said a moment 

ago, raises the broader issue about whether the obligation in relation to Senate ministers is severable from the 

terms of the entire order. That is by no means clear. 

Senator RHIANNON: That is what I meant by semantics. It is not a complicated— 

Senator Brandis: It is not semantics. It is not a semantic issue at all. 

Senator RHIANNON: It is language. 

Senator Brandis: Of course. 

Senator RHIANNON: The Prime Minister has gone on the record many times talking about his commitment 

to transparency and the importance of it for his government, and here we have a very simple, straightforward 

order. Okay, we know the House of Representatives is totally separate, but the order can still be applied to 

senators. All you need is to have a commitment to do it. 

Senator Brandis: You may think it is as simple as that. I see a constitutional issue here. You think this is 

semantic. But any order depends on the language that the draftsman of the order uses. Whether there has been 

default in compliance depends upon whether the order is capable of operating in the first place. 

Senator RHIANNON: If you say you are committed to transparency, in this day and age, 2017, it is pretty 

basic. I will just give you an example. 

Senator Brandis: You can talk in rhetorical generalities all you like, but you have asked me about whether or 

not a particular order of the Senate has been complied with. I have explained to you why it is not as simple as you 

may think. 

Senator RHIANNON: To go to some specifics: the Townsville Bulletin gave us an interesting report on the 

former Minister for Energy and Resources, Ian Macfarlane, who, as we know, is still in the cooling-off period. It 

is reported that he boasted at a business function in Townsville in February that he would talk to his 'good mates 



in Canberra' in order to make sure our native title laws are amended in the wake of a Federal Court decision 

which threatens the Adani coalmine. My understanding of what you have said is that that is not a problem at the 

moment because there is confusion and uncertainty in how you view this order. Do we just have to live with 

things like that? 

Senator Brandis: I did not actually say that, but let me read from the order so that we can be clear what we 

are saying. The order applies—and this is paragraph 1(a)—to: 

… all meetings, including teleconferences, at which lobbying, advocacy or the consideration of business took place, including 

date, location and duration, between current ministers, secretaries or deputy secretaries (or equivalent), of any Commonwealth 

Department or Agency and former ministers … 

You instanced the case of Mr Ian Macfarlane. Mr Macfarlane is not a lobbyist. Mr Macfarlane is the chief 

executive, however so described, of the Queensland Resources Council. His engagement in relation to the 

particular issue—and I have not seen the report in the Townsville Bulletin, by the way, but I do not dispute it—on 

behalf of the Queensland Resources Council is not the engagement of a lobbyist, in other words a third party hired 

to advocate on somebody's behalf, but directly speaking as a stakeholder. 

Senator RHIANNON: You are seriously saying that is not lobbying? We do not just have third party 

lobbyists. You know that. There are in-house lobbyists. A CEO's job is to get out there and lobby. He used the 

term 'good mates in Canberra'. 

Senator Brandis: I am sorry, but there is a lobbying code. 

Senator RHIANNON: And it is inadequate. 

Senator Brandis: Whether it is inadequate or not, that is the code that we have. In it, lobbying is defined in 

terms of third party advocacy. So, if somebody advocates a point of view on their own behalf, that would not be 

captured by the meaning of 'lobbying' in the lobbying code—just as, for example, if a constituent were to ring me 

up, as a senator for Queensland, and say, 'Senator Brandis, I have this issue; can you help me, please?', that is not 

lobbying. But if, for example, a business were to hire a registered lobbyist to approach me, that would be. 

Senator RHIANNON: Is it accurate that if Mr Macfarlane had lobbied a federal minister about that issue in 

relation to Adani, that would be okay under your current interpretation of the standards—so it is a non-issue the 

way you view it? Is that accurate? 

Senator Brandis: What I am saying is that the lobbying code applies to lobbyists, but stakeholders or 

constituents who put a point of view on their own behalf are not captured by the lobbying code—because they are 

not third parties. 

Senator RHIANNON: Can you please table the advice about the situation for ministers in the House of 

Representatives? 

Senator Brandis: I do not have it. I have been told about it, but I have not read it and I have never actually 

physically had it. 

Senator RHIANNON: You have not been given it; you have only been told about it? So we need to go 

directly to the Clerk of the House of Representatives about it? 

Senator Brandis: I am not sure whether senators are at liberty to approach the Clerk of the House of 

Representatives. 

Senator RHIANNON: We will take advice on that. 

Senator Brandis: Maybe the Clerk of the House of Representatives might be good enough to provide it. 

Senator RHIANNON: When were you told about that? 

Senator Brandis: Some days ago. 

Senator RHIANNON: Only days ago? 

Senator Brandis: More than days ago. Some weeks ago. 

Senator RHIANNON: In that time, considering it is a considerable change from what was passed by the 

Senate, what steps have you taken? 

Senator Brandis: None. 

Senator RHIANNON: You are not planning on reporting that to the Senate? 


Senator McALLISTER: I would like to ask a follow-up. Who provided that advice to you, Minister? 



Senator Brandis: I was advised by a House of Representatives colleague that they had received advice from 

the Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Senator McALLISTER: So a colleague is in possession of formal advice. 

Senator Brandis: I do not know whether it was written or oral. I did not ask. 

Senator McALLISTER: Are you able to tell us who the colleague was? 

Senator Brandis: I am not proposing to, no, for the very simple reason that I never disclose private 

conversations. 

Senator RHIANNON: Considering the Senate passed this—so it is a decision of the Senate—that you are a 

minister in the government and that you have been given this information, why are you not planning on reporting 

at least the information that we are apparently in conflict with how the House of Representatives works or coming 

forward, possibly, with advice on how that should be handled? 

Senator Brandis: Senator Rhiannon, if the Senate—and I am not necessarily saying this is the ultimate 

conclusion—passes a resolution that is legally or constitutionally incompetent, then it is not for me to correct the 

Senate, but, as I said to you, the government is considering the implications and the reach and its obligations, if 

any, arising from this order. 

Senator RHIANNON: You have just said, 'the government is considering,' will it issue its decision publicly 

or is this something that is just internal? What do you mean by 'considering'? 

Senator Brandis: I meant 'considering'. 

Senator RHIANNON: Seriously, we are at estimates, that is a fair question to ask. Is it going to be reported 

publicly or is it not, because when you answer it like that it sounds like it is opaque. Transparency has nothing to 

do with your government when you speak like that. 

Senator Brandis: Senator Rhiannon, you are entitled to make whatever political points you like in this forum, 

but I understand that House of Representatives ministers, on the basis of advice from the House of 

Representatives Clerk, have formed the view that the injunction of this order does not extend to them. Because of 

the way in which the order is expressed a question then arises about whether Senate ministers are bound either 

because the order is expressed in terms of generality, so, if there is a severable obligation upon Senate ministers, 

then perhaps they are, if there is not a severable obligation so that the order is incompetent entirely, then there is 

nothing to comply with, and that is the question the government is considering. 

Senator RHIANNON: I actually have three questions on notice—it was from the October estimates last 

year—about former ministers Andrew Robb, Martin Ferguson, Ian Macfarlane and Craig Emerson. In all of them 

DPMC failed to answer the question whether it is the policy of this government to decline meetings with former 

ministers inside the cooling-off period. 

Senator Brandis: Senator Rhiannon, if you would be good enough to tell us the reference number of those 

questions that were taken on notice, we will have a look at them and I will see if I accept your assertion that the 

department failed to provide the answer. Ms Kelly has provided me with one of your questions, which is question 

reference no. 10. 

Senator RHIANNON: Is that Martin Ferguson? 

Senator Brandis: It says: 

Answer: 

The Statement of Ministerial Standards was tabled by the Acting Prime Minister on 11 December 2013. 

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) is not in a position to answer a question about the practice across 

government regarding meeting former Ministers. PM&C notes, however, clause 2.24 in the Statement of Ministerial 

Standards referred to an eighteen month period where former ministers will not meet with members of the public service on 

any matters on which they have had official dealings as a Minister in their last eighteen months in office. 

So it is a little different from what you have said, Senator. 

Senator RHIANNON: I will come back to those and try again. Just to finish off, it was also last October that 

I asked about this and you could not tell me about any procedures you had in place to make sure the standards 

were abided by. Do you now see that as irrelevant or negated because of what has happened in the House of 

Representatives? 

Senator Brandis: I do not even know what you are talking about, Senator. 

Senator RHIANNON: It is a question where I was asking about the procedures. 



Senator Brandis: Senator, perhaps I can approach or try to respond to you in this way: the government will 

comply with its obligations under all proper orders of the parliament, but, if an order has been made by a house of 

the parliament in terms which are beyond its jurisdiction or otherwise incompetent, then there is nothing to 

comply with. 

Senator RHIANNON: But haven't you contradicted yourself then? You said that the government would 

comply with proper orders of parliament. 

Senator Brandis: Proper orders. 

Senator RHIANNON: We have a proper order of the Senate. 

Senator Brandis: No, Senator. 

Senator RHIANNON: Exactly. 

Senator Brandis: There is very much a question about whether there is a proper order of the Senate. 

Senator RHIANNON: Yes, but all you are relying on at the moment is that you have been told something by 

somebody in the House of Representatives, you said you have not actually seen anything written down, and you 

are not planning on saying anything in the Senate. So how can you say that there is a commitment from the 

government to abide by the proper order of parliament when we have what is standing as an order in the Senate. 

questioned I acknowledge by the House of Reps, but here, you, as the Attorney-General sitting in the important 

seat of government in cabinet, are not willing to sort this out. So how can you say that there is that commitment? 

Senator Brandis: When you say 'sort it out', if the Senate, or a majority of senators, vote for an order which 

on closer scrutiny appears to be incompetent for jurisdictional reasons then that is not a question for me— 

Senator RHIANNON: But how can you say 'close scrutiny' when you have not seen it? 

CHAIR: Senator, please allow— 

Senator Brandis: That is not a question for me, Senator. 

Senator RHIANNON: Well, who is it a question for? 

Senator Brandis: If the view, after careful consideration and after taking appropriate advice, is that the order 

is not capable of compliance then it is an incompetent order. 

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. 

CHAIR: Senator Kitching. 

Senator KITCHING: Thank you, Chair. I have some questions relating to the statement of ministerial 

standards. I will just ask, firstly, Senator Brandis: I presume that when one is sworn in one might be given some 

material when one becomes a minister and that might include the statement of ministerial standards? 


Senator KITCHING: Ministers would be made aware of— 


Senator KITCHING: That is right. I agree with you, Senator Brandis; I think it is good to be very clear about 

that which we are speaking. I will just read the foreword: 

Ministers and Assistant Ministers are entrusted with the conduct of public business and must act in a manner that is 

consistent with the highest standards of integrity and propriety. 

They are required to act in accordance with the law, their oath of office and their obligations to the Parliament. 

In addition to those requirements, it is vital that Ministers and Assistant Ministers conduct themselves in a manner that will 

ensure public confidence in them and in the government. 

This document sets out the expected standards for that conduct. 

I do not have a signed copy from the Prime Minister here, but obviously the foreword was written by him. If I 

can now turn to 2.24, and the heading above that is 'Post-ministerial employment'. It says: 

Ministers are required to undertake that, for an eighteen month period after ceasing to be a Minister, they will not lobby, 

advocate or have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, public service or defence force on any 

matters on which they have had official dealings as Minister in their last eighteen months in office. Ministers are also 

required to undertake that, on leaving office, they will not take personal advantage of information to which they have had 

access as a Minister, where that information is not generally available to the public. 

I would draw your attention to an article in the Australian Financial Review on 21 February—and I am very 

happy to give you a copy of that—in which it states: 



Former federal minister Jamie Briggs will still want to forget 2016, the annus horribilis in which he quit Malcolm 

Turnbull's— 

and lost his seat. It continues: 

It was a spectacular political flame-out, to be sure…But things are looking up: Briggs has joined professional services from 

PricewaterhouseCoopers as a director. According to a note circulated on Monday to partners, Briggs will lead an advisory 

push into infrastructure and cities (his former ministry) and South Australia's favourite, defence. 

It goes on to make some rather unkind comments about Adelaide and the dearth of industry. I am very happy if 

you would like to have a look at that. 

Senator Brandis: That is fine. 

Senator KITCHING: Has the former Minister for Cities and the Built Environment, Mr Briggs, had any 

meetings with members of the government? I will limit it to the government because I cannot ask you to comment 

on the Public Service, but perhaps Ms Kelly will be able to. Has he had any meetings with members of the 

government or the Public Service relating to infrastructure matters since December 2015? 

Senator Brandis: I do not know. 

Senator KITCHING: Will you take it on notice? 

Senator Brandis: Yes, I will. May I make the point, Senator, that Mr Briggs's ministerial responsibilities did 

include cities and infrastructure. They did not include the defence industry or industry more generally in South 

Australia. So to the extent to which you have included both topics in your question, only the first of the two topics 

is relevant to the statement of ministerial standards. 

Senator KITCHING: I understand the delineation you are making— 

Senator Brandis: Secondly— 

Senator KITCHING: That was merely quoting from the article. 

Senator Brandis: Sure; I get that. Secondly, of course, one cannot say whether there was an obligation under 

this standard attracted in a particular case without knowing the particular subject matter of Mr Briggs's 

engagement. 

Senator KITCHING: The 'note to partners'— 

Senator Brandis: That is expressed in very general terms. 

Senator KITCHING: 'will lead an advisory push into infrastructure and cities'. I am not asking you really 

about that; I am asking about whether you are aware whether Mr Briggs has had— 

Senator Brandis: I have answered your question. The answer is no, but I have taken it on notice. 

Senator KITCHING: You will take it on notice. Ms Kelly? 

Ms Kelly: Not that I am aware of, Senator Kitching. 

Senator KITCHING: Will you take it on notice as well? 

Ms Kelly: I can. 

Senator KITCHING: Thank you. 

Ms Kelly: That is just in relation to PM&C? 

Senator KITCHING: Yes; thank you. Chair, can I move on to another— 

Senator Brandis: Senator Kitching, I do not want to labour the point, but of course people become ministers 

often, indeed usually, with a body of pre-existing knowledge about the area of their portfolio. When I became the 

Attorney-General I had been the shadow Attorney-General for six years. Just because a person is a former 

minister, having served in a particular portfolio for a period of time, and then becomes involved in areas relevant 

to that portfolio does not necessarily mean that they are drawing upon things they learned as a minister. 

Senator KITCHING: I agree that no-one really comes—hopefully no-one ever comes—to a ministerial or 

assistant ministerial position as a tabulariser, because that would be, one would think, a disaster. But what I am 

saying to you is that you have all signed up to the statement of ministerial standards and under those they actually 

require an undertaking that on leaving office—so an undertaking which I would think is quite a serious matter— 

they will not take personal advantage of information to which they have had access as a minister where that 

information is not generally available to the public. 

Senator Brandis: Absolutely. That is a very proper standard and it is not at all unlike employment contracts 

in the private sector, as you would be aware, Senator. But my point is that just because Mr Briggs, who I know, 

because he is a friend of mine, has always taken something of an interest in this area—infrastructure—and may 



have been a minister in the portfolio for a period of time does not mean that anything he may have to say to PwC 

about infrastructure is derived from what he learned as a minister, because it would not be. 

Senator KITCHING: I am not suggesting that that is the case. 

Senator Brandis: Thank you. 

Senator KITCHING: I am asking whether he has taken any meetings or has suggested he have any meetings 

because, in fact, the ministerial standard to which he was given notice of and presumably complied with, and is 

still complying with, says 'will not lobby, advocate or have business meetings with members of the government, 

parliament, public service or defence force'. 

Senator Brandis: I understand. 

Senator KITCHING: So I am asking you to take that on notice. 

Senator Brandis: I understand and I have done so. 

Senator KITCHING: That would be good. Chair, can I move on to another topic? 

CHAIR: Yes, you may. 

Senator KITCHING: Thank you. It is in relation to former minister Ley. 

Senator Brandis: Are you talking about Mr Michael Lee? 

Senator KITCHING: Former minister Sussan Ley. 

Senator Brandis: Sussan Ley. 

Senator KITCHING: Yes, Ley. The hits on Twitter had the hashtag connecting with 'layby'. I just want to 

ask you about the Parkinson report into the disgraceful former health minister Sussan Ley's abuse of her 

parliamentary entitlements. Has the Prime Minister publicly released a copy of Mr Parkinson's report into Ms 

Ley's misconduct? 

Ms Kelly: No. 

Senator KITCHING: When will the Prime Minister make this report public? 

Ms Kelly: The Prime Minister has made a public statement in relation to that which indicated that he did not 

propose to make the detail of the report public. In terms of using the Prime Minister's words, he said, 'I'm not 

planning to release the report from the secretary of my department,' and that is where it ends. 

Senator KITCHING: I know we had quite a long discussion on cabinet processes earlier. The Prime Minister 

is the chair of cabinet so he could still choose to release the report, can he not? 

Ms Kelly: If I can just complete that quote. The Prime Minister said, 'I'm not planning to release the report 

from the secretary of my department. Let me just explain to you. When issues like this arise, when there are 

questions of a breach of the ministerial standards, the appropriate course of conduct is to ask the secretary of my 

department to investigate it and he then provides advice to me which is cabinet-in-confidence. It is for my benefit 

and that of government's committee of cabinet. That has happened in the past and the practice has never been to 

release that confidential advice.' 

Senator McKENZIE: Just on that, Ms Kelly: was the report into former Minister Fitzgibbon released by 

former Prime Minister Rudd? 

Senator KITCHING: Actually, Chair, if I could continue my line of questioning— 

CHAIR: Sorry. Senator Kitching, it is a perfectly appropriate follow-up question. You can continue. 

Senator McKENZIE: It is just following on from your line of questioning. 

CHAIR: I will allow Ms Kelly to answer the question. 

Ms Kelly: Sorry, Senator McKenzie. That was before my time. I am happy to take that on notice. 

Senator Brandis: I think Senator McKenzie's point is that there is a practice of government in relation to 

matters of this kind which has been observed by both sides of politics, and the Prime Minister was being 

observant of it. 

Senator KITCHING: That is very interesting because I was actually going to draw your attention to the 

Stuart Robert precedent, where Dr Parkinson's investigation there was released. I will also draw your attention, 

Ms Kelly, to a statement made by Sussan Ley: 'I do not object to the material that I have provided being made 

public'. So she is the subject of the investigation and has said that she does not mind. Then there is the example of 

Stuart Robert and that precedent where—I think it was on 12 February 2016, the Prime Minister did release the 



advice. What I am asking is: why is there a difference in treatment? And why is the Prime Minister refusing to 

release Dr Parkinson's report into Sussan Ley, when he did it to a former minister. 

Senator Brandis: I will take that on notice. 


Senator Brandis: I am not familiar with the reasons. I am sorry; I am corrected by Ms Kelly: apparently the 

assertion you have made about Mr Robert is not true. 

Ms Kelly: Senator Kitching, I am not aware that any advice prepared for the Governance Committee of 

Cabinet, as was the case in relation to former Minister Robert, has ever been released. 

Senator KITCHING: The good news is I have part of the press release here. It was issued by the Prime 

Minister in relation to Stuart Robert on 12 February 2016: 

Dr Parkinson concluded that Mr Robert had acted inconsistently with the Statement of Ministerial Standards … 

And he released the report. So, if you need to take that on notice— 

Senator Brandis: Sorry, Senator Kitching— 

Senator KITCHING: Chair, if no-one is certain about the difference, if you could take that on notice and let 

us know. 

Senator Brandis: I am sorry, Senator Kitching, but I noticed that you began to read from the Prime Minister's 

press release but, when you observed that the Prime Minister 'went on to release the report', you were not quoting 

from the press release. Are you sure that he released the report? 

Senator McKENZIE: Could we table that press release, please? 

Senator Brandis: Because that is contrary to Ms Kelly's understanding. 

Senator KITCHING: Yes. 12 February 2016—'Statement by the Prime Minister'. 

Senator Brandis: Does it say, 'I released the report'? 

Senator KITCHING: I am very happy to table— 

Senator Brandis: Does it say 'I am releasing the report'? 

Senator KITCHING: He certainly— 


Senator McKENZIE: No. 

Senator KITCHING: What I will say is that he actually states the conclusions Dr Parkinson arrived at— 

Senator Brandis: Well, that is not 'releasing the report'. 

Senator KITCHING: So why can't he release the conclusions that Dr Parkinson arrived at in relation to 

former Minister Ley? 

Senator Brandis: If I may say so, you have got this wrong. You have made a false assertion— 

Senator KITCHING: No, I have not. 

Senator Brandis: I am sure it is— 

Senator KITCHING: Dr Parkinson concluded that Mr Robert— 

Senator Brandis: I am sure it is an innocent mistake— 

CHAIR: Order! 

Senator KITCHING: had acted inconsistently— 

CHAIR: Order! Senator Kitching, please allow Senator Brandis to respond to your question. 

Senator Brandis: I am sure it is an innocent mistake, Senator Kitching, but the position is not as you 

represented it to be. 

Senator KITCHING: Why can't the Prime Minister release Dr Parkinson's findings about former minister 

Sussan Ley, when he has actually released the findings of Dr Parkinson in relation to Mr Stuart Robert? 

Senator Brandis: Ms Kelly's evidence is that he did not, and the press release on which you rely to support 

that assertion does not support the assertion— 

Senator KITCHING: But the conclusions were released. 

Senator Brandis: on closer inspection, Senator Kitching— 

Senator KITCHING: The conclusions were released. 



Senator Brandis: The conclusions were that—all that that press release from which you have quoted 

apparently says is that, for the reasons Dr Parkinson considered, Mr Robert should stand down. So it is not a valid 

comparison. And, as Senator McKenzie has helpfully intervened to point out, the practice of not releasing these 

reports has been the custom and practice of governments over the years from both sides of politics. 

Senator KITCHING: I would ask you, Senator Brandis, to take on notice— 

Senator Brandis: I will take it on notice. 

Senator KITCHING: Take on notice, please, why Dr Parkinson's conclusions in relation to former disgraced 

Minister Sussan Ley cannot be released as they were in relation to former Minister Robert. 

Senator Brandis: Well, they were not. You are asking me to take on notice— 

Senator KITCHING: I am asking you— 

Senator Brandis: A question which, from your own lips, is obviously based on a false premise— 

Senator KITCHING: I would like to know the conclusions— 

Senator Brandis: Nevertheless, I will take on notice the question: the reasons why the Parkinson report in 

relation to Ms Ley was not released. 


Senator Brandis: And I suspect the answer will be: 'because these reports never are'. 

Senator KITCHING: Thank you. I have another question, Chair. 

CHAIR: Is it on a related topic or a different topic? 

Senator KITCHING: It is a section 44 matter. 

CHAIR: Senator Rhiannon, you had similar questions on this topic? Let's continue on that for a moment. 

Senator Rhiannon. 

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you, Chair. Minister, does the government support, in the statement of 

ministerial standards as endorsed by the Prime Minister in 2015, paragraph 2.24, which relates to post-ministerial 

employment? 

Senator Brandis: This is the government's own statement. Of course it supports it. 

Senator RHIANNON: So it is supported. Thank you. If Mr Ian Macfarlane had lobbied in the way described 

in the earlier question, in speaking to mates in Canberra in regard to native title and the Adani mine, would this be 

a breach of those standards? 

Senator Brandis: It is a hypothetical question, but the point I made to you when we canvassed this a little 

while ago is that, in interpreting the ministerial standards when it comes to lobbying, one would naturally have 

regard to what lobbying means as defined by the lobbying code of conduct—in other words, paid third-party 

advocacy. That is not what Mr Macfarlane has been engaged in. Mr Macfarlane has been engaged, apparently, in 

making representations directly on behalf of his own industry association. That is not lobbying as the lobbying 

code understands lobbying to be. 

Senator RHIANNON: But, Minister, I started off by asking you if the government supported 2.24, and you 

were very clear, saying that it is the government's— 

Senator Brandis: We do. It is our document. So of course we support it. 

Senator RHIANNON: Yes. And that is not about the lobbying code. It says, 'Ministers— 

Senator Brandis: Yes, but the operative concept is lobbying. 

Senator RHIANNON: But— 

Senator Brandis: And if we asked ourselves the question, 'What is lobbying?', then the place of first inquiry 

is the lobbying code, which does give meaning to the term—that is, paid third-party advocacy. 

Senator RHIANNON: But, Minister, when you take the words that you have just said and put them beside 

this, it sounds like you are trying to muddy the waters. That is why— 

Senator Brandis: No, I am not trying to muddy the waters. I am trying to insist on precision. 

Senator RHIANNON: Chair, I should be allowed to finish my question. Let's read it out, because you are 

trying to shift it over to the definition of lobbyist. But 2.24 states: 

Ministers are required to undertake that, for an eighteen month period after ceasing to be a Minister, they will not lobby, 

advocate or have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, public service or defence force on any 

matters on which they have had official dealings as Minister in their last eighteen months in office. 



That is what we are dealing with and that is why I asked you about Mr Macfarlane. It is not about the lobbying 

definition. It is about that. 

Senator Brandis: Well, okay— 

Senator RHIANNON: And that was what my question referred to. 

Senator Brandis: It is not apparent to me that Mr Macfarlane has done that. Even if the meaning of the 

conduct described in paragraph 2.24 is broader than what the lobbying code of conduct defines lobbying to be, it 

is not for a moment apparent to me that Mr Macfarlane has engaged in any such conduct. 

Senator RHIANNON: Even with what was reported in the Townsville Bulletin about how he boasted at a 

business function that he would talk to his good mates in Canberra with regard to native title laws and the Adani 

coalmine? You do not regard that as being captured by 2.24? 

Senator Brandis: Not necessarily. Not if the concept that is being caught here is advocating on behalf of third 

parties. He was not advocating on behalf of a third party. 

Senator RHIANNON: That is not what 2.24— 

Senator Brandis: That was advocating a point of view on behalf of an industry association that he heads. 

Senator RHIANNON: And that is why I draw your attention back to 2.24. The fact that you keep bringing 

that in starts to sound like you are working out a defence for the former minister. 

Senator Brandis: No, I am just trying to work out what it means. 

Senator McKENZIE: He is just trying to be helpful, Senator. 

Senator RHIANNON: That sounds really helpful coming from you, Senator McKenzie. 

Senator Brandis: What I am trying to do is understand what the meaning of these words are. 

Senator RHIANNON: If there was a breach of 2.24, what are the consequences, please? 

Senator Brandis: Well, I am not acknowledging that there was a breach. 

Senator RHIANNON: No. That was not my question. It is a new question. 


Senator RHIANNON: I have not named anybody. If there is a breach—fair question—of 2.24 what does the 

government do? 

Senator Brandis: I am not going to get into the business of answering hypothetical questions. 

Senator RHIANNON: It is not a hypothetical question; it is a process question, to understand— 

CHAIR: Senator Rhiannon, the minister was part-way through— 

Senator RHIANNON: It is fair, Chair. 

CHAIR: answering your question. Please give him a moment. 

Senator Brandis: This is a code of conduct. It is not a set of legally enforceable obligations; it is a code of 

conduct. 

Senator RHIANNON: And so the next question is, and it is a fair question—you sit at the table of 

government. There is increasing public concern about the standards of how government works. We have a very 

clear requirement there about ministers when they leave office and how they will work, something that will give 

the public more confidence—as millions of dollars swirl around this place as people come in to lobby—about 

how the process of governments works. And you will not answer what will happen if 2.24 is broken. 

Senator Brandis: I was just saying that it is a code of conduct. 

Senator RHIANNON: Will you answer it? 

Senator Brandis: These are not legally enforceable obligations. It is a code of conduct. 

Senator RHIANNON: Therefore the code of conduct is broken and nothing happens. Is that the conclusion? 

Senator Brandis: It sets a standard that those to whom it applies are expected to observe. 

Senator RHIANNON: And if they do not observe it, we do not have consequences. 

Senator Brandis: There are no legal consequences because it is not a legally enforceable document. 

Senator RHIANNON: So there are no legal consequences? Any consequences— 

Senator Brandis: It is not a document that imposes legally enforceable obligations. 

Senator RHIANNON: That is very clear. Thank you for clarifying it. Are there any consequences at all? 



Senator Brandis: If the obligation were to be breached, the consequence would be that the obligation had 

been breached and the breach of the obligation would be a fact that would, no doubt, attract notoriety and censure. 

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you. 

Senator KITCHING: On the other side of that, Ms Kelly, let us say that Prime Minister and Cabinet's Mr 

Briggs came to have a meeting about cities, for example. Would the public servants they met with—obviously it 

is not the same code of conduct, but there must be an APS code of conduct. Is there anything in that document 

which precludes meeting with former ministers during the cooling-off period? I ask because there might be 

consequences under employment law, in terms of someone from the APS meeting with a former minister. 

Ms E Kelly: Certainly, under the Lobbying Code of Conduct, there is a prohibition on meeting with an 

unregistered lobbyist, for public servants, and in the event that public servants meet with an unregistered lobbyist 

there can be consequences for them under the APS Code of Conduct. 

Senator KITCHING: Have you found that the code of conduct works well? Before I was a senator, I was a 

lawyer in a law firm and I can tell you that lawyers in Victoria are exempt. They do not have to put themselves on 

the lobbying register, so there is a bit of a— 

Senator Brandis: It is because they are not lobbyists. 

Senator KITCHING: They are lawyers. 

Senator Brandis: That is right. 

CHAIR: I am sure you did no lobbying in that role, Senator Kitching. 

Senator KITCHING: None whatsoever; I was busy beavering away in legal matters. Have you found that the 

code of conduct works, in terms of departmental staff meeting with lobbyists? 

Ms E Kelly: I can only say that I am aware that there is very broad knowledge, particularly at senior levels 

within the APS, of the existence of the code of conduct. Of course, it only applies to people who are lobbying and 

within the definition of lobbying activities under the code of conduct, but there is broad awareness of it. 


Senator McALLISTER: I wanted to ask some questions about the BRANDit competition. Who should I 

speak to about that? 

Ms E Kelly: The APSC, who are due to be on following the department, are running the BRANDit 

competition. 

Senator McALLISTER: Yet it is being judged by the secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

Ms E Kelly: The secretary was asked to assist in the judging and, I understand, has agreed to do that, but the 

competition is being run by the APSC. 

Senator McALLISTER: When was Dr Parkinson approached about participating in the competition? 

Ms E Kelly: I will have to take that on notice, but I suspect that the APSC will have the answers to those 

questions. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is it your evidence that the origins of the competition lie within the APSC? 

Ms E Kelly: I cannot take that matter any further. 

Senator McALLISTER: Perhaps I will put it another way. Is it your evidence that the original idea for this 

competition was not generated by any staff within Prime Minister and Cabinet? 

Ms E Kelly: I actually do not know where the original idea for this competition was generated, so I am not 

able to answer that question. 

Senator McALLISTER: You cannot rule out that it was generated in Prime Minister and Cabinet? 

Ms E Kelly: I just do not know where it was generated. 

Senator McALLISTER: Are there any staff in Prime Minister and Cabinet working on this competition? 

Ms E Kelly: Not that I am aware of. 

Senator McALLISTER: Okay. I will direct my questions to the APSC when they are here. Can I turn then to 

the behavioural economics unit in Prime Minister and Cabinet—that is in your department, isn't it? 

Ms E Kelly: Yes, that is Dr Kennedy's area. 

Dr Gruen: No, it is me. 

Ms E Kelly: Dr Gruen, sorry. 



Senator McALLISTER: Dr Gruen, does this unit work on specific projects? 

Dr Gruen: Yes, Senator. 

Senator McALLISTER: So it has a capacity-building function? 

Dr Gruen: Yes. 

Senator McALLISTER: But it also does that through working with line agencies on specific projects? 

Dr Gruen: Indeed. 

Senator McALLISTER: Has BETA done any work with the Department of Human Services or with 

Centrelink? 

Dr Gruen: The list of departments that BETA works with is quite long and it is growing. I think there are now 

14 or 18 departments that work with BETA. I will be able to lay my hands on the list of all those departments at 

some point—I do not have it in front of me. Most of the departments of state in Canberra partner with BETA. 

Senator McALLISTER: Can you tell me whether Human Services or Centrelink is on that list? 

Dr Gruen: I believe so. I will confirm it for you. 

Senator McALLISTER: Would it be best if I turn to some other questions and come back to you, Dr Gruen? 

Dr Gruen: Certainly. 

Senator McALLISTER: My other questions probably are not for you. 

Senator Brandis: I do not think Dr Gruen will mind. 

Dr Gruen: No, I do not. I would be very happy for you to ask other questions and I will get back to you on 

that. That is fine. 

Senator McALLISTER: Okay, on to something quite different. Can I ask about the birthday party? You 

might need Ms Kelly back at the table. 

CHAIR: Here is Ms Kelly. 

Senator McALLISTER: Ms Kelly, can I ask some questions about the birthday party the Prime Minister 

threw for Ms Bishop, Mr Frydenberg and Senator Bushby on 17 July last year? 

Ms E Kelly: I understand that that was a function for coalition members rather than a birthday party. 

Senator McALLISTER: It was billed as a birthday party, I think. At least, it was photographed— 

CHAIR: I received an invitation and it did not mention any birthday, I have to say. I would have been more 

excited if it had! 

Senator Brandis: I was at the function to which you are referring as well, Senator McAllister. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is that right? 

Senator Brandis: That was not a birthday party. 

CHAIR: There were no balloons, and I do not think you can have a party without balloons. 

Senator Brandis: There were no balloons. 

Senator McALLISTER: So there were no balloons and there were no streamers. 

Senator Brandis: I know that people can be silly about these things in estimates. A degree of good humour 

and flippancy is tolerable. That having been said, it is not the truth to say that it was a birthday party. It was a 

function for coalition members. There were about 100 people there, wouldn't you say, Chair? 

CHAIR: Yes. 

Senator Brandis: As it happened, three of the 100 or so people who had been invited were celebrating a 

birthday on that day or within the days around about that day, so that fact was acknowledged. 

Senator McALLISTER: How many people did you say were in attendance? 

Senator Brandis: Ms Kelly might have the actual figure. 

Ms E Kelly: Ms Ganly will assist me. 

Senator McALLISTER: Around 100 is your estimate though? 

Senator Brandis: Let us see if we have the specifics figure. 

Ms Ganly: The event was arranged through the Prime Minister's office, so we do not have a guest list for that 

function. But we can advise it was a coalition function and fell within the usual criteria for a function. We did 

discuss it, I think, at the last Senate estimates as well. 



Senator Brandis: I believe all government members and senators were invited. I cannot remember whether it 

was with their spouses and partners. It was not, I am told— 

CHAIR: Not to my memory. 

Senator Brandis: If it were government members and senators, it would have been approximately 100. 

Senator McALLISTER: I am interested in the birthday cakes, because Ms Bishop posted a photo of herself 

posing with the Prime Minister, Mr Frydenberg and Senator Bushby at the Lodge with cake. Where were the 

birthday cakes ordered from? 

Ms Ganly: In the beginning, the staff at the Lodge knew it was Minister Bishop's birthday. At the time they 

were actually making cakes—they always have a sweet at the end of the receptions—and instead, when the staff 

at the Lodge became aware of the fact that there were several birthdays, they used the cake mix to prepare 

birthday cakes. They were made in-house. One cake was made and cut into three portions, essentially, so that 

each member celebrating a birthday had some cake. 

Senator SMITH: It was supplemented for the other desserts that would normally be on the menu. 

Ms Ganly: It was the same mix. There was no additional cost incurred. They essentially just converted what 

they were making into a largish birthday cake. 

Senator McALLISTER: I will turn to another function, which is the drinks that were held at Kirribilli House 

on Saturday, 21 January. It was reported on in The Sydney Morning Herald on that same day. What was the 

purpose of the function? 

Ms Ganly: The Prime Minister has traditionally held a Christmas event in Sydney—around the same time, 

they have one in Canberra and one in Sydney. Last year, because of a series of events happening at the time, that 

did not occur. So, instead of the December Christmas function, they held an event in January. It was with the 

business community, essentially, in Sydney. 

Senator McALLISTER: The purpose of this traditional function is to connect the business community to the 

Prime Minister at Christmas time, but it happened in January. 

Ms Ganly: That is right. It happened in January. It was the same style of guest list that we would have had in 

December. In actual fact, the feedback was that it worked very well. There were a lot of people in town. It did not 

clash with events. 

Senator McALLISTER: Was this cocktail party organised by the Prime Minister's office or by the 

department? 

Ms Ganly: It is organised through CERHOS, so it is an official event. 

Senator McALLISTER: It is a CERHOS function. 

Senator Brandis: I do not think it was a cocktail party. It was a drinks party. 

Ms Ganly: It was a reception. It was drinks and finger food. 

Senator McALLISTER: How is that different to a cocktail party? 

Senator Brandis: That is a very good question, Senator McAllister. I would have thought probably an early 

evening function— 

Senator McALLISTER: I was not going to bite but— 

Senator Brandis: might be called a cocktail party. I think this was in the daytime. I was not there myself. 

Senator SMITH: I prefer the word 'soiree'. 

Senator Brandis: That would be in the evening, Senator Smith. 

Ms E Kelly: If I can assist, the guests included ministers, a former Prime Minister, academics, representatives 

from cultural organisations, industry representatives and a range of business representatives. So it was broader 

than just business. 

Senator McALLISTER: Were there any officials from the Liberal Party, the National Party or the 

Queensland LNP in attendance? 

Ms Ganly: I do not think I have the guest list with me at the moment. There was a mix of guests. I can 

certainly get that information for you. 

Senator McALLISTER: If you are able to get that information for us today, before the estimates period 

closes—we have another couple of hours—that would be appreciated. 

Senator Brandis: When you say 'officials', do you mean paid officials? 



Senator McALLISTER: Yes, I mean paid officials or those that occupy senior unpaid roles. 

Senator Brandis: There are very many very prominent and significant Australian citizens who are members 

of political parties, including the Liberal Party. 

Ms E Kelly: It is also quite hard for us to do that, because we do not actually know who the employees of the 

Liberal Party are. I just want to qualify the extent to which we would be able to do that. 

Senator Brandis: Can I just make this point to you, Senator McAllister, if it helps: I was not at this function 

but I have been at the equivalent of the Christmas parties in previous years and I do not recall any of the paid 

officials of the Liberal or National parties being at those functions. 

Senator McALLISTER: What about the senior elected officials? I am thinking about presidents, vicepresidents, 

those kinds of people. 

Senator Brandis: I will have a look at the list and I will tell you who is who. 

Senator McKENZIE: You can't ask more than that! 

Senator McALLISTER: I could. I wonder actually if Ms Ganly would be able to table the guest list. Then we 

could have a look at it and make our own assessment about who is who. 

Senator Brandis: We will have to think about that. There may be privacy issues. 

Ms Ganly: There is a format that we do use with regard to providing the guest lists, and it is divided up. I will 

certainly have a look and see what we can get in what format it is at the moment. 

Senator McALLISTER: What food was served at the party? 

Ms Ganly: I do not think I have the— 

Senator Brandis: I think you were told 'finger food', whatever that means. 

Ms Ganly: Yes. It was all a mix of finger food, but I do not have the details of the items that were served. 

Senator McALLISTER: Do you think that is something that you could retrieve and provide to us? 

Ms Ganly: Yes, if it is available. There is no problem at all. 

Senator McALLISTER: Similarly, could you provide information about what beverages were served? We 

were assured they were not martinis, but knowing the name and the vintage of the wine and champagne would be 

appreciated and whether there were any flowers purchased—those sorts of things. 

Ms Ganly: Yes. 

Senator McALLISTER: Would you ordinarily have waiters or function staff for this sort of party? 

Ms Ganly: Yes, we do. We have a series of waiters who are brought in on a casual basis for the function. 

Senator McALLISTER: Any entertainment? 

Ms Ganly: No, there was not any entertainment. 

Senator McALLISTER: No band, no DJ? 

Senator Brandis: I am sure there were speeches. 

Ms Ganly: There were speeches. 

Senator McALLISTER: Very entertaining! There was no band? 

Ms Ganly: No, there was no band. I was actually there on the day, assisting. 

Senator McALLISTER: Was it necessary for there to be additional security staff or AFP officers present for 

the party? 

Ms Ganly: No. We actually use CERHOS to do the check-off at the gate. There were no additional security 

guards for the event. 

Senator McALLISTER: Do you have the total cost? 

Ms Ganly: I do. 

Senator SMITH: Which event are we talking about now? 

Senator McALLISTER: We are still on the belated Christmas party. 

Senator Brandis: We are talking about the delayed Christmas party. 

Senator McALLISTER: At Kirribilli. 

Ms Ganly: It was $18,088.44. 

Senator McALLISTER: Could we have an itemised list of costs? 



Ms Ganly: Yes. The hospitality, which was the food, was $4,000. The beverages were $2,206.54. The staff 

costs were $3,343.10. The flowers were $408.55. Then there were the miscellaneous costs—which were the 

marquee, equipment hire, the audio equipment, and photography—which were $8,130.25. And there was no 

entertainment. 

Senator McKENZIE: Ms Ganly, sorry if I missed this earlier: how many guests where there? 

Ms Ganly: There were 188 guests. 

Senator McALLISTER: I think you said earlier there was not any entertainment. What would $8,000 worth 

of equipment hire look like? 

Ms Ganly: The marquee hire comes out at—I think it was divided between a couple of functions—$7½ 

thousand. That was divided between that and the reception in honour of the Prime Minister of Japan. 

Senator SMITH: Just to be clear: a marquee was set up but used for numerous events. 

Ms Ganly: That is right, for two events. 

Senator SMITH: So, it is not right to say that it was $18,000 for this event. 

Ms Ganly: It was $18,000. We share the cost, so we would have divided the costs of the marquee across that 

and the reception for the Prime Minister of Japan. 

Senator Brandis: And lest you think, Senator McAllister, that there was some extravagance, the cost per 

guest—$2,206.54 worth of beverages among 188 guests—was $11.74. So, it was hardly a— 

CHAIR: Maybe two stubbies each. 

Senator McKENZIE: Or a large cider each. 

Senator Brandis: It was $11.70 per guest. 

Senator McALLISTER: Back to the marquee, if we perhaps attribute $3½ thousand— 

Ms Ganly: Yes, it would be about the $3½ thousand, and then there was the audio equipment. 

Senator McALLISTER: What was the audio equipment for? 

Ms Ganly: We would have had it for the Japanese function as well—the microphone, the people to come and 

set up essentially, so that we have it for speeches, so that we have the PA system operating. 

Senator McALLISTER: This is a serious question: do we not have a PA system at Kirribilli House? 

Ms Ganly: No. Setting up at Kirribilli House is not a straightforward arrangement, so they do have to get 

someone in to set it all up so that it works outside. 

Senator SMITH: Just in the spirit of transparency, I was wondering whether or not the department might be 

able to provide on notice the cost of beverages and the event that was held on 5 February 2015, of which the 

Courier Mail said 'Prime Minister calls for unity as MPs trade barbs'. It was hosted by former Prime Minister 

Gillard for Labor caucus members at The Lodge. Would you have those details? 

Ms Ganly: That information relates to the previous government. We do not have those costs available, and 

they are not on the public record. 

Senator SMITH: Would you have details about the 20 July event, hosted, again, by Julia Gillard, which 

included union officials for dinner at The Lodge, which was reported by Andrew Tillett at The West Australian 

under the headline 'Key MPs threaten early poll'? 

Ms Ganly: I would have to take that on notice to see if that information is on the public record. 

Senator SMITH: And I am assuming you will test for me whether the 10 May event in 2010, when former 

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd hosted Labor caucus drinks and dinner at The Lodge, which was reported in The 

Herald Sun in an article titled 'Prime Minister tries to pacify worried caucus' on 8 May 2010— 

Ms Ganly: Yes, I will have a look at all three of those to see which ones are available and how they were 

covered and reported. 

Senator McKENZIE: While you are—it seems that this is a tradition and it stands way before—could you 

also look at Prime Minister Hawke's entertainment at Kirribilli? 

Ms Ganly: I will have a look and see whether we still have those records. But certainly none of the events, or 

this event, are out of the norm for what has been done for successive governments. That is one of the things—any 

of the costs that are being paid from official establishments. It is one of our checks to make sure that it is value for 

money, and that certainly is something we do for whatever government of the day is in place. 

CHAIR: Good to hear! 



Senator KITCHING: If we are going to do former Prime Minister Hawke, I feel that we should do former 

Prime Minister Howard as well. 

Senator McKENZIE: Well, just check about Labor fundraising events, I think— 

Senator KITCHING: We will just do the full kit and caboodle. 

Senator Brandis: I bet you will find that there is not one at which the beverages cost was as low as $11.74 per 

guest. 

Senator KITCHING: I am very impressed—a little disappointed, but impressed! 

Senator McKENZIE: A sober government! 

Senator KITCHING: I think Ms Ganly you said some waiters are brought in on a casual basis. 

Ms Ganly: That is correct. 

Senator KITCHING: So, catering and hospitality at both The Lodge and Kirribilli? 

Ms Ganly: Depending on the size of the function, at the current time we have only one permanent staff 

member at Kirribilli, and that is the house manager, and he was actually on leave at the time of that function. 

Senator KITCHING: The January—the belated Christmas— 

Ms Ganly: That is correct. All staff who came in for that function were casual. Depending on the size of the 

function at The Lodge, we actually have four members of staff there, but at the moment we do not have a 

permanent chef, so the chef would be brought in under a casual arrangement, and the other staff would be used, 

and if we required additional staff they would be hired. 

Senator KITCHING: So, normally there would be a full-time chef at The Lodge? 

Ms Ganly: There has traditionally been a full-time chef at The Lodge, but we have not had one since April 

last year. 

Senator KITCHING: Are there contracts for all events—the day-to-day catering? Are they contracts on an 

award basis? An event-by-event basis? How do you award the contracts? What is the process for getting a 

contract for wherever you get the waiters from, for example? 

Ms Ganly: Regarding the casual waiters, to ensure that we have people who are essentially trusted staff, we 

do have a pool that we draw on, and those staff are signed up to a casual contract under the MOP(S) 

arrangements, and that includes a confidentiality clause as well. Should we need to go outside that for some 

reason—people not available—then we would consult Admiralty House or others to ensure that we are bringing 

people on board who are known. 

Senator KITCHING: Are you able to provide the names of the companies who provided these services in the 

past 12 months and those that are currently under contract? 

Ms Ganly: Essentially the staff are on a casual basis, so they are not employed through a company. 

Senator KITCHING: So, there is no award wages or enterprise bargaining agreements? 

Ms E Kelly: It would be the enterprise agreement that relates to the MOP(S) Act staff. 

Senator KITCHING: So, they would be under an award. They would be being paid award wages. 


Senator KITCHING: Would you expect a reduction on contract for Sunday events and functions? 

Ms E Kelly: We actually do not pay those staff. They are MOP(S) Act staff paid by the Department of 

Finance, so you might need to address those questions to the Department of Finance. 

Senator KITCHING: Okay. I am happy to do that. 

Senator McALLISTER: Which part of the Department of Finance should we speak to? 

Ms E Kelly: Sorry, Senator Kitching: apparently we do pay them. I did not realise that. Even though they are 

under the MOP(S) Act, we do pay them, but we might need to take your question on notice. 

Senator KITCHING: Yes, could you take that on notice—would you expect a reduction on contract for 

Sunday events or for functions? And if on awards, have any projections or modellings been made to see how 

much money the waiters will lose for hosting events on weekends at The Lodge? For example, at the event where 

Julie Bishop had her birthday cake on the Sunday evening in July 2016, how much would a worker who handed 

her a slice of cake lose under the recent Fair Work Commission decision? 

Ms E Kelly: Senator Kitching, you are much more expert at these matters than I, but I think it is an enterprise 

agreement rather than an award that is the basis for these staff. But we will confirm that and come back to you. 



Senator KITCHING: Thank you. I am sure you understand the import of my question. 

Ms E Kelly: Yes, we understand. 

Senator KITCHING: When did DPMC first become aware that Prime Minister Abe would visit Sydney on 

14 January? 

Ms Ganly: I would have to take that on notice. 

Ms E Kelly: In the usual course it would be the international division that would first become aware of such a 

visit, and then CERHOS would put the arrangements in place, but it would be through our international 

division—Mr McKinnon and Ms Yu. 

Mr McKinnon: It was a program and a visit agreed at only short notice. My recollection is that it was about 

10 days or so. 

Senator KITCHING: What was the role of DFAT? Was there a collaborative approach between DFAT and 

DPMC? 

Mr McKinnon: There is always a collaborative approach, certainly in terms of the briefing and so forth. But 

essentially PM&C ran the visit proper. 

Senator KITCHING: When did DPMC finalise the attendees on the Australian side of Prime Minister Abe's 

visit? 

Mr McKinnon: We will have to take that on notice. 

Senator KITCHING: When was foreign minister Bishop first invited to attend? 

Mr McKinnon: Again, I would have to take that one on notice. 

Senator KITCHING: Did the Japanese side request that Minister Bishop join the meetings? If so, when? And 

at what stage did the Japanese side have confirmation that Minister Bishop would be joining the Prime Minister in 

Sydney on 14 January? 

Mr McKinnon: I will take all of those on notice. 

Senator KITCHING: And, since the 2013 election, on how many occasions has the foreign minister been 

part of the Australian delegation hosting a foreign head of government outside of Canberra where the counterpart 

minister is not part of the foreign delegation? Is it normal practice or occasionally the case, or on how many 

occasions has this occurred? And what was Minister Bishop's role on 14 January in the meetings with Prime 

Minister Abe? 

Mr McKinnon: Again, on that one it will require a quite significant amount of work to find out how many 

occasions and so forth. 

CHAIR: On that note, we will suspend. 


Senator McALLISTER: Ms Kelly, I want to ask you about the services provided to the Prime Minister's 

Point Piper residence. We have previously been told that the only services provided for that residence at Point 

Piper are security and mail redirection. Is that still correct? 

Ms E Kelly: Yes, on an ongoing basis. 

Senator McALLISTER: I guess you have qualified that answered by suggesting that your answer refers only 

to services on an ongoing basis. Are there other services that are provided that are not ongoing? 

Ms E Kelly: As has been reported, two functions have been held at the Prime Minister's residence at Point 

Piper, and those functions were supported by CERHOS. 

Senator McALLISTER: So it is functions and hospitality only, essentially? 

Ms E Kelly: That is correct. 

Senator McALLISTER: Does the Prime Minister make a personal contribution to any of the ongoing costs? 

Ms E Kelly: Of? 

Senator McALLISTER: Of Point Piper. 

Ms E Kelly: It is his private home. 

Senator WONG: No, to the security and mail redirection. Obviously it is his home. 



Ms E Kelly: To the mail redirection, I would imagine not. In relation to security, I do not know the detail of 

that. That would be a matter that the AFP may be better placed to answer as they deal with security in relation to 

the residence. 

Senator Brandis: These are questions for the AFP, in so far as they are the main element. I am familiar with 

that house, having been there several times. There is some sort of electronic security. Whether that is pre-existing 

and part of the Turnbulls' own costs or whether that is picked up by the Commonwealth, I do not know. Are you 

interested only in the AFP provided security, or are you interested in other security beyond that, as well? 

Senator McALLISTER: I am interested in understanding the nature of the costs that the public bears in 

relation to the Point Piper residence. We have previously been told that the two elements of ongoing costs there 

are mail redirection and security. From your answer, Senator Brandis, I understand that the security there partly 

involves services provided by the AFP and may also involve some other services. 

Senator Brandis: It may. 

Senator McALLISTER: I am trying to understand what element of the security provided at Point Piper is 

paid for by the Commonwealth. 

Senator Brandis: We will take that on notice in this Estimates committee and then perhaps in the Legal and 

Constitutional Committee can I invite you or one of your colleagues to ask that question of the AFP, which is 

obviously the main element. 

Senator WONG: Ms Kelly, you answered very carefully there that the detail of that is a matter for the AFP. 

Can I ask the question this way: what involvement does PM&C have in any of the security arrangements at Point 

Piper? 

Senator Brandis: If any. 

Senator WONG: Thank you for the correction, Senator Brandis. 

Senator Brandis: Well, I am not correcting. I am just trying to make it clear what the question is. 

Ms E Kelly: Very limited involvement, Senator Wong. As the Attorney-General has said— 

Senator WONG: Yes, we understand that. 

Ms E Kelly: —it is pre-existing security and then additional security. I cannot take— 

Senator WONG: What is the nature of the very limited involvement? 

Ms E Kelly: We are certainly aware that the security is in place—so that is where our involvement ends. 

Senator WONG: Is that advised to you by the AFP, by the Attorney-General's, by the Prime Minister's 

office? 

Ms E Kelly: It is something that we do liaise with the AFP on from time to time. 

Senator WONG: What generates that liaison? 

Ms E Kelly: It could be a number of things, including whether an issue arises or a concern is expressed. 

Senator WONG: By whom? 

Ms E Kelly: It could be from either party. 

Senator WONG: Either party meaning PM&C or the Prime Minister or his office? 

Ms E Kelly: I am not aware of any concerns raised by the Prime Minister—that is not to say that there are not 

any—but concerns from the department or the AFP. 

Senator WONG: Which parts of the department would be the ones that raise concerns, and what is the nature 

of it? 

Ms E Kelly: It would be Ms Ganly and the Ministerial Support area. 

Ms Ganly: I have not had any contact with the AFP for a very long time with regard to Point Piper. It was 

only in the initial days, where they were keeping us informed that they were doing work there. 

Senator WONG: This was immediately after Mr Turnbull became Prime Minister? 


Senator WONG: Were you kept in the loop in terms of any ongoing capital works? 

Ms Ganly: Not the costings. They informed us that they were doing works there, and that was the extent. 

Senator WONG: Where you informed at any time about the cost? 

Ms Ganly: No. 



Senator WONG: What about details of personnel allocated to the residence? 

Ms Ganly: No, I am aware that staff are there—that is it. 

Senator McALLISTER: Part of the reason for my interest is that the former Prime Minister has said that 

taxpayers would save $3 million a year if Mr Turnbull moved into Kirribilli House. Is it true that his decision to 

remain at Point Piper is costing taxpayers $3 million a year? 

Ms E Kelly: I do not know the answer to that question, and I do not think that you can compare circumstances 

between different prime ministers and very different circumstances that exist in relation to them. 

Senator McALLISTER: Are you aware of any other additional costs that taxpayers bear as a result of Mr 

Turnbull's decision not to live at Kirribilli but instead to live at Point Piper? 

Ms E Kelly: Not that I can think of, but I am happy to take that on notice and further consider it. 

Senator Brandis: We will do as well as we can, but as a matter of common sense there are costs associated 

with securing the Prime Minister's home at Point Piper. There will also be savings arising from the fact that 

Kirribilli House is not occupied full-time as an effective family home. I do not know what the balance is, but we 

will derive that figure as best we can. 

Ms E Kelly: If I could just qualify my answer, I do not know what the security costs are and so I cannot speak 

for that aspect. 

Senator McALLISTER: You are unaware of any security costs other than those incurred by the AFP? 

Ms E Kelly: The Attorney-General's Department and the AFP do look after the protective security of the 

Commonwealth, so it would be the Attorney-General's Department and the AFP. 

Senator McALLISTER: But are you aware of any additional services that are provided in addition to those 

provided by the AFP? 

Ms E Kelly: It is really something to take up in the Attorney-General's Department estimates, but I think the 

Attorney-General's Department is the capital costs, and the AFP is the recurrent. 

Senator WONG: We understand that we will ask the Attorney-General's Department and the AFP. We are 

asking what you are aware of. 

Ms E Kelly: And I cannot go beyond what I have said. 

Senator WONG: I think my colleague asked whether there are any other security costs as a result of services 

provided by the AFP or through the Attorney-General's Department. 

Ms E Kelly: And I have said that I will take that on notice—not that I can think of offhand, but I will take that 

on notice and further explore that. 

CHAIR: Is it the case that any other former prime ministers have entertained official visitors, perhaps foreign 

dignitaries, at their personal homes rather than Kirribilli or The Lodge? 

Ms E Kelly: That is my understanding. 

CHAIR: What other instances are you familiar with? 

Ms E Kelly: It was before my time in this role, but I understand there were instances in relation to former 

Prime Minister Rudd. 

CHAIR: Right. So he hosted foreign visitors at his personal home in Brisbane. Is that your knowledge? 

Ms E Kelly: I do not have personal knowledge of that. 

Senator Brandis: I can recall press reports to that effect. 

Senator SMITH: The Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. 

CHAIR: Maybe, Ms Kelly, you could take on notice any records you have about any costs incurred in hosting 

those foreign visitors. 

Ms E Kelly: Yes. 

Senator McALLISTER: We were blown off track briefly, but I did want to ask: of those costs that you are 

aware of, is there a cost-sharing arrangement between the Prime Minister and the department in terms of costs 

associated with the residents at Point Piper? 

Ms E Kelly: The only costs that we referred to were mail redirection. As far as I am aware, the department 

pays the cost of the mail redirection in full. Security I cannot speak to. 

Senator WONG: Do you have any knowledge of any cost-sharing arrangement? 



Ms E Kelly: No. I do know that there was existing security in place, but I do not know the details of that, no. 

Senator WONG: Sure. But in terms the additional—subsequent to becoming Prime Minister—do you as the 

deputy secretary have any knowledge of any cost-sharing arrangement between the Prime Minister and the 

Commonwealth? 

Ms E Kelly: No. 

Senator McALLISTER: I am wondering if we can also ask about the solar panels and battery set at Point 

Piper. This has been reported in the AFR as being approximately three times the size of a typical household 

installation. Were you notified of this before they were installed? 

Ms E Kelly: The Prime Minister's Sydney home is his private home, and anything in relation to that home is 

his private business. It does not concern the department. 

Senator McALLISTER: So you were not involved? 


Senator McALLISTER: No additional costs associated with the department? 


Senator McALLISTER: Since 15 September 2015, what costs have taxpayers incurred in relation to the 

maintenance of and provision of services to the Prime Minister's two official establishments? 

Ms E Kelly: Are you asking for the total cost of operating the Lodge and Kirribilli since September 2015? 

Senator McALLISTER: Correct. 

Ms E Kelly: That is total running costs, including functions and maintenance of the residences? 

Senator McALLISTER: If you have at hand a number that is a subset of that, I would welcome it. I would 

really welcome any number you are able to provide, as long as it is qualified appropriately. 

Ms E Kelly: We will take that on notice and see what we are able to provide. 

Senator McALLISTER: It is essentially the same question as a question on notice that was lodged on 10 

February. There has been some notice of our interest in this issue. 

Senator Brandis: As Ms Kelly has said, we will take that on notice. You want to know the aggregate of all 

the running costs of Kirribilli House and the Lodge since, presumably— 

Senator McALLISTER: The date that Mr Turnbull assumed office; correct. 

Senator Brandis: I think Mr and Mrs Turnbull moved into the Lodge some time later in 2015, because there 

had been that period of renovations. Do you want it from the date on which they occupied the Lodge, or from the 

date on which Mr Turnbull became Prime Minister? For the first few months it would not really be relevant, 

because nobody was there; it was being renovated. 

Senator McALLISTER: I am happy for it to proceed on the basis of the date that they moved into the Lodge, 

or that the Lodge became habitable. That seems reasonable. But, of course, Kirribilli House was uninhabited then 

and is now. 

Senator Brandis: We will find out when they moved in. I think it was in either December 2015 or January 

2016. 

Ms E Kelly: I think it was January. 

Senator Brandis: We will give you the figures from the date that it was handed over, as it were, by those who 

were in charge of renovating it, and, in relation to Kirribilli House, from the day on which Mr Turnbull was 

commissioned by the Governor-General. 

Senator WONG: In addition—I suppose one might be a subset of the other—what I would like to know is 

funding to date in relation to the Turnbull prime ministership for, (1) PM&C support for PMO—that is, all bills 

associated with the operation of PMO, including provision of petty cash, payment of IHG bills, vocated functions 

and so forth, and (2) what the sustenance expenditure to date is—that is, the funding of meals and drinks at the 

Lodge and Kirribilli under the Prime Minister's entitlement to accommodation and sustenance as determined by 

the Remuneration Tribunal. Is there a component of sustenance now available for Point Piper? 

Ms Ganly: No. 

Senator WONG: No—and then CERHOS functions; separately disaggregated CERHOS functions for any 

official functions held at the Lodge, Kirribilli or Point Piper. Thank you. 



Senator FARRELL: I just have one related question: I sent a letter to the Prime Minister on 2 February 

regarding some of the costs associated with security. You are nodding; does that mean you recall the letter? 

Ms Ganly: I am aware of the correspondence. 

Senator FARRELL: Has the department drafted a response to that letter for the Prime Minister? 

Ms E Kelly: We will have to take that on notice. We do not know where that is at, but we will take that on 

notice and come back to you. 

Senator FARRELL: You recall seeing the letter, though? 

Ms Ganly: I recall that it has been received, yes. 

Senator FARRELL: What you do not know is whether or not there has been a response drafted? 

Ms Ganly: No, I do not know. 

Senator FARRELL: Would you ordinarily give advice in respect of that response? 

Ms Ganley: Yes, if it relates to our area we would be invited for a response. 

Senator FARRELL: Thank you. 

Senator WONG: I think there were some questions asked about the provision of catering and hospitality 

services at the Lodge and Kirribilli and the basis upon which those people are engaged—whether it is award 

wages or EBAs. Those questions were asked earlier? 

Ms Ganley: Yes. 


Senator WONG: Are you coming back to us on that? 

Ms E Kelly: The information I have obtained is that they are employed under the PM&C enterprise 

agreement, as altered by a particular determination that is done for each individual staff member. But we will 

confirm that and come back to you more fully. That is the understanding of the staff member that I have here 

today. 

Senator KITCHING: Ms Kelly said that I might know more than she, and I think that is because I looked at 

the acts in the break. If it is Department of Finance, it cannot be the MOP(S) EBA. I wanted to bring your 

attention to that—that it could not have been that. 

Ms E Kelly: It is the PM&C EA, and it is amended by some special provisions to take account of their 

circumstances in the determination for each employee. 

Senator WONG: I think Senator Kitching is ceding the call to me because she is kind! 

CHAIR: Senator Kitching, that is very kind. 

Senator KITCHING: Thank you, but I do have other questions. 

Senator WONG: I would like to go back to one more international call and then put something on notice. 

Prime Minister Turnbull and Prime Minister May spoke by telephone—I think it was on 23 February. Was 

PM&C involved in setting that call up? I should start by asking on which day the call actually took place—I am 

going off the public reports. 

Mr McKinnon: I do not have the answer to that on hand. I will take it on notice. Ms Yu is still here. She may 

come in in a moment and have the exact detail there. 

Senator WONG: I am sure she would; she is that kind of officer. 

Mr McKinnon: She appears to be; she has shown me up! Now we have built her up, we will see! 

Senator WONG: I think that she will, at least, be able to tell me what she does not know—if you know what I 

mean. 

Ms Yu: Unfortunately, I will have to take that on notice. I do not have the answer. 

Senator WONG: That is fine. Do you know what day the call was on? 

Ms Yu: Could I take that on notice, or find out by a phone call again? 

Senator WONG: Sure. I want to ask about some details of that call which are, essentially, along the same line 

as the call to the President—who was in the room, what records were taken et cetera. Are you able to see if you 

can obtain those, and I will see if I can come back to you. Is that all right? 

Ms Yu: I will try to get that for you. 



Senator WONG: And can I put on notice, please, for all telephone calls between Mr Turnbull and foreign 

heads of state or heads of government since the last election. 

Ms Yu: Yes. 

Senator WONG: I have an FOI question. We had a long discussion on the last occasion about FOI and 

various messaging apps. Can I turn first to the well-publicised exchange between the Prime Minister and former 

Prime Minister Rudd using the Wickr app. I understand that those messages have been requested under the FOI 

Act by a media organisation. Have those messages been provided in accordance with the act, or is the department 

claiming grounds on which it cannot produce those messages? 

Ms E Kelly: Senator Wong, excuse me, I might get Mr Arnaudo to assist me in relation to that. 

Senator WONG: Are you the FOI officer? 

Mr Arnaudo: I am. I caught only part of the question as I was walking in. What was it in relation to? 

Senator WONG: Wickr—there was an exchange which has been reported between the Prime Minister and 

former Prime Minister Rudd. It is the subject of an FOI application and I am asking whether or not that FOI 

application has been determined and whether the messages have been provided. 

Mr Arnaudo: I am not aware of a request of that nature to the department, but I am happy to take it on notice. 

It might have been a request to the Prime Minister's office directly. 

Senator WONG: That is not the information that I have, but maybe you could clarify that. 

Mr Arnaudo: We provide some administrative support to the Prime Minister's office in responding to FOI 

requests that are made to that office. I am not aware of a request regarding that term. I might have to take on 

notice the actual time frames for that request. 

Senator WONG: The Archives Act—disposal, destruction et cetera—section 24: 

(1) Subject to this Part, a person must not engage in conduct that results in: (a) the destruction or other disposal of a 

Commonwealth record … 

Are you familiar with this section of the act? 

Mr Arnaudo: Yes, I am. 

Senator WONG: In layperson's terms, it essentially creates an obligation to ensure that Commonwealth 

records are not disposed of inappropriately. Is that correct? 

Mr Arnaudo: Yes, correct. 

Senator WONG: Have you turned your mind to how that obligation applies to various messaging 

applications? If a cabinet minister sends another cabinet minister a text message or a WhatsApp message about a 

cabinet discussion or a cabinet decision, is that covered by section 24? 

Mr Arnaudo: It is probably more a question of archives policy and— 

Senator WONG: I am asking you a legal question. It is not policy. I am asking about what you understand 

and what you will advise ministers and their officers are their obligations under this. 

Mr Arnaudo: I am aware that the Archives Act does have a provision that allows documents of a routine 

nature—often short-term, transitory sorts of messages—to be destroyed as part of normal administrative practice. 

That is guidance that the National Archives of Australia gives to record managers across the Commonwealth. 

Senator WONG: It is not your responsibility? Is that what you are saying? 

Ms E Kelly: Archives is a matter for the Attorney-General's portfolio. 

Senator Brandis: It is not entirely irrelevant to this discussion that those sections of the Archives Act came 

into being before these apps were invented. And there is a departmental review of the Archives Act underway at 

the moment, as a matter of fact. I think that context is important to understand. 

Senator WONG: That is self-evident, with respect. But the principle is that you cannot get rid of a 

Commonwealth record inappropriately, and now we have apps whereby texts containing information which, were 

they on a piece of paper, would be a Commonwealth record can be automatically destroyed. 

Senator Brandis: I think there are two issues here. Obviously one is the question, what is a Commonwealth 

record? But secondly, there is the question—which I have tried to advert to, to give a little balance to the 

discussion—about whether those pre-existing provisions of the Archives Act that do allow for the culling of 

documents consistently with routine administrative practice are to be applied in the era of text messages and apps 

like WhatsApp and so on. 



Senator WONG: Mr Arnaudo, I think you said that you do support—sorry: I cannot recall precisely the 

wording you used, but you do provide advice or support PM— 

Mr Arnaudo: We provide administrative support to the Prime Minister's office and— 

Senator WONG: Did you provide advice in relation to the FOI application by media organisation about the 

exchanges between the Prime Minister and Mr Rudd using the Wickr app? 

Mr Arnaudo: I am not exactly sure. We get a number of requests all the time in relation to FOI, and I cannot 

recall exactly whether that particular request was to the department or the Prime Minister's office. 

Senator WONG: No, I think I have confirmed now it was to the Prime Minister's office. I am asking if advice 

was sought from you and/or if you provided it. 

Mr Arnaudo: We provide administrative support in responding to FOI requests of the Prime Minister's 

office— 

Senator WONG: Did you provide administrative support in relation to this application? 

Mr Arnaudo: I think we would have because we would have done the acknowledgement of a FOI request 

having been received. If the Prime Minister's office had asked us to do anything in relation to that request, we 

would have tried to assist. 

Senator WONG: Everything you said is in the 'would have'. What did you do? 

Mr Arnaudo: I would have to take it on notice in relation to that particular request. There is quite a large 

number of requests that the Prime Minister's office receives over any time, and, other than right now being able to 

provide that answer in general terms, we provide that sort of administrative support to the Prime Minister's office 

to respond to FOI requests that are made to that office. 

Senator Brandis: That is a satisfactory answer though, with respect. If an officer says— 

Senator WONG: I am glad you think so because that is what we are here for. We are here to make sure that 

you are happy with the answers! 

Senator Brandis: If an officer says, 'This is what I would've done,' then obviously he is drawing upon his 

usual practices and customs and making the assumption that the usual practices and customs would have been 

observed by him in a particular case. That is a perfectly responsive answer. 

Senator WONG: I am very pleased that that is your opinion. Do you have any direct knowledge of this 

particular matter? And, if you do not, who does? 

Mr Arnaudo: The staff in my office provide that day-to-day support, and I do recall seeing that request being 

made. But we do get lots of requests to the Prime Minister's office and the department. 

Senator WONG: Do you recall any advice being provided in respect of this application or others to the Prime 

Minister's office about the obligation under section 24 of the Archives Act? 

Mr Arnaudo: Our general advice to any decision-maker, whether they are in the department or the Prime 

Minister's office, is about the types of searches they should conduct in order to satisfy their requests under the FOI 

Act. That can include searches of mobile phone devices, email servers and those other sorts of places where 

documents could be stored that are relevant to the request. 

Senator WONG: That is not quite my question. I understand that, but do you provide advice about the 

obligation which is reasonably explicit in section 24—certainly implicit in section 24—of the Archives Act? 

Mr Arnaudo: It is hard for me to answer in relation to this specific answer, but, as I said, generally we 

provide advice to decision-makers that they need to carry out searches to locate whether— 

Senator WONG: Searches? But this is about whether documents are destroyed. What advice do you provide 

to officers about the obligation under section 24 of the Archives Act? 

Mr Arnaudo: I am not sure I provide that level of specific advice when they are dealing with an FOI request. 

Senator WONG: Do you provide any advice at all about what section 24 and the offence provisions mean to 

ministers or their staff? 

Mr Arnaudo: I personally do not, but there is a general awareness across the department and, I am also 

confident, in the Prime Minister's office of the obligations that apply to— 

Senator WONG: Thank you. How does that general awareness apply to applications such as Wickr where the 

message is essentially destroyed? 

Mr Arnaudo: I am not sure of that particular situation or how it would work or not. We have processed FOIs 

that seek documents that are stored on apps such as Wickr. 



Senator WONG: You have processes? 

Mr Arnaudo: No, we have processed. We have managed FOI requests. 

Senator WONG: How have you done that? Tell me what you have done. 

Mr Arnaudo: The decision-maker would often commission searches of people who might have relevant 

documents, which would include searching apps such as Wickr as well as other storages of electronic documents. 

Senator WONG: But you do not tell people not to delete texts? Is that reasonable? 

Mr Arnaudo: That is not really my role. The obligations that apply to public servants and Commonwealth 

officials under the Archives Act apply generally anyway. 

Senator WONG: Are public servants allowed to delete texts? If the Prime Minister messages Ms Kelly with 

an instruction, what is her understanding of her obligation about either keeping or recording that text message? 

Ms E Kelly: I do not think the obligation is technology or device specific. 

Senator WONG: I agree. 

Ms E Kelly: It relates to the content of the communication. 

Senator WONG: I agree. If you got a text from the Prime Minister or a prime ministerial staffer that related 

to Commonwealth business—not 'Are you free for a drink?' but something to do with work—would you regard 

that as a message that you would be required to keep? 

Ms E Kelly: It would depend very much on the context. 

Senator Brandis: I was just going to say the same thing. That is an unfair question to the officer because you 

would have to look at each particular message to give a proper answer to that. Vague descriptions like 'Is it work 

related?' will not suffice to put the officer on the spot like that—with respect. 

Senator WONG: If the text message related to functions of the Commonwealth, decisions of the 

Commonwealth—that, if they had been on an email, you would regard as something you would need to keep— 

would you have that same view in relation to a text message? 

Ms E Kelly: As I said earlier, it is not device or technology specific. 

Senator WONG: Is that the advice that prime ministerial staffers and ministers themselves receive as well? 

Ms E Kelly: I think Mr Arnaudo said that, in the course of processing this advice, he cannot recall whether 

that is the case. We will certainly take on notice your question and make inquiries to see whether that advice has 

been provided through any other channels. 

Senator WONG: Does anybody tell ministers and their staff what they need to keep on either messaging apps 

or by text messages, or not? 

Ms E Kelly: As I said, we will take that on notice and make those inquiries. 

Senator WONG: Thank you for doing so, but you would agree that PM&C does not tell them that. 

Ms E Kelly: Not that I am aware of but, as a said, I will take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Can I turn now to— 

Senator Brandis: Before you go on, can I draw your attention to paragraph (c) of section 24(2) of the 

Archives Act—which is the section that Mr Arnaudo was referring to earlier—which allows for the destruction, 

disposal or transfer of Commonwealth records in accordance with normal administrative practice. It is 

undoubtedly correct to say that the key concept here is the content of the communication. Ms Kelly is correct to 

say that something would ordinarily be required to be retained—were it to take the form of an email, for 

example—and the same principle would apply to a text message or a WhatsApp message. However, it may be the 

case—and that is why I was at pains to make the observation I made a little while ago—that what would be 

regarded as a normal, administrative practice within the meaning of section 24(2)(c) of the Archives Act may be 

different in relation to electronic messaging—as, for example, emails. It is not quite as black and white as you 

might think. 

Senator WONG: Can I turn now to a couple of economic policy issues. Dr Gruen, has the department been 

engaged in any work either on its own or in conjunction with Treasury on tax policy? 

Dr Gruen: As you know, we provide regular briefings to the Prime Minister on a whole range of issues, 

including tax policy. I know that is a generic answer, but that is the situation. 

Senator WONG: Has the department provided a briefing in relation to capital gains tax? 



Dr Gruen: Amongst a wide range of topics on which we have provided briefing, we have provided briefing 

on capital gains tax. 

Senator WONG: On how many occasions? 

Dr Gruen: I would need to take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Over the last six months, on how many occasions has the Prime Minister been briefed by 

the department in relation to capital gains tax? 

Dr Gruen: I am happy to take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Has the department been engaged with Treasury in any work relating to capital gains tax 

reform? 

Dr Gruen: We discuss issues with Treasury; however, we have not been involved, as far as I am aware, in any 

work with Treasury on capital gains tax reform in the way you have put it. 

Senator WONG: What work have you been engaged in with Treasury? 

Dr Gruen: We are in engaged in discussions with Treasury on economic policy issues on a regular basis. I 

would be misleading you to say that we have been engaged in work on capital gains tax issues with Treasury. 

Senator WONG: I want to ask some questions about the lead-up to the December COAG and the policy work 

there, and the work that the COAG Energy Council was also doing as auspiced by first ministers. I will start with 

Mr Frydenberg's announcement on 5 December, which included the terms of references for the government's 

review of climate change policy. Was the department engaged at all in the development of those terms of 

reference? 

Mr Yeaman: We were involved in general discussions with the Department of the Environment and Energy 

prior to the release of the discussion paper. 

Senator WONG: How did the terms of reference and those discussions relate to the work the COAG Energy 

Council was undertaking? 

Mr Yeaman: The way I would express it is that they were generally informed by the ongoing discussions with 

the COAG Energy Council, but the terms of reference for the 2017 review was a Commonwealth decision. 

Senator WONG: So, generally informed, but the Commonwealth made the final decision. I know this is a bit 

of a sequence, Ms Hatfield Dodds, but, as at that point, was the issue of the government's review of climate 

change policy and/or the work of the COAG Energy Council intended to be discussed at the COAG meeting—the 

first ministers meeting? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: I am going to defer the answer to that question to Mr Yeaman. 

Senator WONG: There is the energy council, and then there is first ministers. I think it is pretty public 

because you have the AEMC and AEMO reports, which were auspiced by the energy council. I am trying to 

understand what was intended, as at 5 December, to be on the COAG agenda. 

Mr Yeaman: It was intended that there would be a broad discussion at the COAG meeting about the work 

that had been commissioned by the COAG Energy Council ministers meeting. 

Senator WONG: Could you say that again. I was slightly distracted. I apologise. 

Mr Yeaman: To the best of my recollection, the intention at the COAG meeting was to have a broad 

discussion on energy, mostly informed by the work that had been brought forward by the COAG Energy Council 

process, including the commissioning of the Finkel review. 

Senator WONG: The AEMC and AEMO investigations were discussed by the energy council in December? 

Mr Yeaman: I might defer to a colleague on that matter. 

Ms Pearce: I believe that they were discussed at the energy ministers council, but for the detail, along the 

lines of how much, you might need to ask— 

Senator WONG: We will ask them. But, because, obviously, a lot of COAG work is out of PM&C, I was 

trying to get the extent of your engagement. Did the department provide advice to the Prime Minister's office 

prior to the terms of reference being announced? 

Ms Pearce: I would expect that we would have provided advice in that space. 

Senator WONG: Were terms of reference considered by the cabinet prior to their release? 

Ms Pearce: I am not sure. We would have to take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Do we know if it was a cabinet decision, or just a ministerial—? 



Senator Brandis: What are you asking us? Was there a cabinet decision to that effect? 

Senator WONG: The terms of reference, which Mr Frydenberg released on 5 December, were released 

publicly. Did cabinet tick off on the terms of reference, or was there some other government process before they 

were announced? 

Ms E Kelly: We would not normally confirm or deny matters that were discussed at cabinet because to do so 

would disclose the content. 

Senator Brandis: That is why I sought clarification of that question. So all you are asking is whether that was 

a decision— 

Senator WONG: They were already public. What was the genesis of those terms of reference? 

Senator Brandis: I will take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Thank you. Prior to the terms of reference being announced on 5 December, was the 

department undertaking any work as to possible market mechanisms for the reduction of emissions in the 

electricity sector? 

Ms Pearce: Senator, I am not sure what you mean by 'undertaking any work'. I would say: no. We obviously 

keep across the wide number of reports and other things that come out in this space, but I would not say we, 

specifically, ourselves, were undertaking work. 

Senator WONG: I do not understand what you mean. 

Ms Pearce: As I said, we keep across everything that is going on in this space, and there is a huge number of 

reports and other things, so we would have been analysing and distilling those, but I would not have said we were 

doing new thinking or new work. 

Senator WONG: I understand the policy generation may not be with you. Did you brief the Prime Minister 

on any occasion prior to 5 December about the benefits of a market mechanism for the reduction of emissions in 

the electricity sector? 

Ms Pearce: I would need to take that on notice, Senator. 

Senator WONG: Can we go back to the COAG meeting? I think you said there was an understanding or it 

was planned that at the COAG meeting there would be broad discussion on energy. Correct? 

Mr Yeaman: Correct. 

Senator WONG: Was a market mechanism intended to be included in that broad discussion? 

Mr Yeaman: No, not specifically. It was a broad discussion on energy. 

Senator WONG: Did you prepare any documents for COAG or were you involved in the preparation—that 

is, auspicing or otherwise—of any documents for COAG at any time prior to 9 December, which looked at, for 

example, a market mechanism for the reduction of emissions in the electricity sector? 

Ms Pearce: What we would have done in preparation for COAG would be to provide background information 

that would have included what Dr Finkel might be thinking. But, again, specifically about expressing a view or 

anything in that space, we would not have; it would have been fairly flat and factual. 

Senator WONG: I understand that. In any briefing about his thinking did you include the prospect of a 

market mechanism such as an emissions intensity scheme? 

Ms Pearce: We would have potentially, I would imagine, have talked about it. It was very topical at the time. 

Senator WONG: At the point you were talking about it, because it was topical—this is prior to 9 December— 

what did you understand the government's policy position to be in relation to an EIS? 

Ms Pearce: My understanding is they did not, at that stage, have a policy position, but I might be wrong on 

the timing. 

Senator WONG: So it did not, at that stage, have either an in or an out policy? 

Ms Pearce: Because we have the 2017 review and we also had Dr Finkel working through what might be 

appropriate in the energy space. 

Senator WONG: At that stage, would it be correct to say that an emissions intensity scheme was something 

that was neither in or out? 

Ms Pearce: Yes. Judging from what the environment and energy minister said when he released the terms of 

reference from the 2017 review, I do not think, at that stage, that he had a view. 



Senator WONG: It was not ruled in and it was not ruled out. Would that be a reasonable assessment of your 

understanding at that point? 

Ms Pearce: Certainly, from what he said, they would consider submissions from people in that space or any 

other. 

Senator WONG: Which include the AEMO and AMC documents. Correct? 

Ms Pearce: I do not think that came up at that particular discussion. 

Senator WONG: No, I am just saying this is a policy design that has been referenced in a number of 

documents in this process. 

Ms Pearce: I think I am confused about where we jumped to. 

CHAIR: I just note, Senator, that we need to move to the next witness. 

Senator WONG: I will be really quick. Do you understand the government's position now to be that an 

emissions intensity scheme for the electricity sector is not an option the government will be pursuing—that is, that 

it is ruled out? 

Ms Pearce: That is my understanding. 

Senator WONG: When did you first become aware that that was the position? 

Ms Pearce: Sometime in December. I could not tell you exact date right now. 

Senator WONG: How did you become aware? 

Ms Pearce: I believe there was a statement from the Prime Minister. 

Senator WONG: What alterations to the COAG agenda or documents provided for COAG did you have to 

engage in, or did you have to implement, as a result of that change in position? 

Ms Pearce: I do not remember if we made any changes. I would have to take that on notice. 

CHAIR: I assume we will be coming back to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet later, which 

will mean after dinner as we have to go the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor now. Then we 

have Senator Cash coming, who has a fixed schedule, for the Public Service Commission and the Office for 

Women. I thank the members of the department for now, but we will be seeing some of you later. 

Independent National Security Legislation Monitor 

[16:51] 

CHAIR: I now welcome Dr James Renwick SC, the new Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, 

and Mr Allan McKinnon, Deputy Secretary of the National Security Division in the Department of the Prime 

Minister and Cabinet. Congratulations, Dr Renwick. 

Dr Renwick: Thank you, Chair. 

Senator Brandis: Mr Chairman, can I introduce Dr Renwick to the committee? 

CHAIR: You may. 

Senator Brandis: Dr Renwick's appointment was announced by the Prime Minister on Friday, and today is 

actually his first day in the job. 

Senator McKENZIE: Bravo! 

CHAIR: It gets better from here! 

Senator Brandis: He is technically the Acting Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, subject to 

the confirmation of the appropriate level of security clearance. Dr Renwick has practised as a barrister since 1996. 

Before that he was a solicitor. He holds a doctoral degree from the University of Sydney. He was also educated at 

the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington DC. He is an adjunct 

professor at the Australian National University and associate of the Sydney Centre for International Law. He has 

very extensive experience dealing with matters on national security law both academically and professionally in 

his capacity as counsel. I would like, on behalf of the government, to congratulate Dr Renwick on his 

appointment, and we look forward to working with him. 

CHAIR: Thank you. Dr Renwick, do you have an opening statement? 

Dr Renwick: Yes, just a brief one. As the Attorney stated, my appointment was announced last Friday and I 

have literally just begun the process of briefing. My statute, as you may know, requires a number of reports to be 

lodged by 7 September. That will be my immediate focus in the months to come. To be clear, those are the reports 

relating to declared areas with foreign fighters; stop, search and seize powers; and control orders and preventative 



detention orders. I am required by my act to report on 7 September, and the reason for that is those are sunsetted 

provisions and the PJCIS then has six months to look at them. As a said, that will be my focus. 

I will be setting a timetable for submissions and hearings, both public and private, very shortly. I expect I will 

decide on that tomorrow. Having read some of the previous estimates questioning, I am conscious that resources 

to my office, which is a relatively new office, is a matter of interest to the committee. Can I say that I have the 

resources which were allocated to Mr Gyles. I have been assured by PM&C that I will have proper resourcing, 

and I accept that assurance. 

Beyond these preliminary remarks, I simply wish to say that I am greatly honoured to succeed Mr Gyles and 

Bret Walker. I am only the third monitor. I look forward to appropriately engaging with all stakeholders, 

including, of course, this committee, and I will be able to answer questions in much more detail in May when I 

am back here next. That is what I wanted to say in opening. 

CHAIR: Mr McKinnon, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr McKinnon: I have nothing to add, thank you. 

Senator XENOPHON: Thank you, Dr Renwick. Spending your first day on the job in estimates; that is cruel 

and unusual punishment, I think! In Mr Gyles's last annual report to the government, in October, shortly before he 

retired, he said: 

None of the topics of review are trivial and all require the balancing of security against individual and community rights and 

freedoms. 

Completion of such a program in an acceptable timeframe will require more support than is presently available. 

He was given some staff to help ease the workload, but he said: 

More work is needed in conjunction with the Attorney-General and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to 

develop the office of the INSLM to the point where it has the capacity to satisfactorily support the Monitor in carrying out the 

statutory duties and functions of the Monitor. 

He also said that, in replacing one monitor with another, there needs to be a seamless departure: 

… so as to avoid the administrative problems that I encountered after my appointment … 

My questions to you are in respect of resources. You have outlined some of the work schedule, but there is a 

concern that I and others have had that you simply do not have adequate resources to deal with these important 

issues in a timely manner. 

Dr Renwick: All I can really say on day one is this: I repeat the assurance which I accept I have been given 

from the department. The question and answers you are referring to—I think Mr Gyles then went on to say that he 

had put in a request for resources, and I think Mr McKinnon said then that it had been approved, and that is so. 

Senator XENOPHON: What are those resources now? 

Dr Renwick: I am entitled, I think, to five staff. I presently have an executive assistant, and I presently have a 

principal advisor, Mr Mooney. As far as a seamless transition goes, Mr Mooney worked under Mr Gyles. I should 

also say that Mr Gyles—and I have just begun reading these—has had prepared very detailed briefing notes on all 

the matters which will come before me. I am working my way through those at the minute. I then have the 

capacity to employ up to three staff. What I propose to do is this: I am going to engage a deputy principal adviser, 

but, for the remaining two positions, I intend to use consultants. I intend to use consultants from the Australian 

Government Solicitor's office. We are identifying an expert on human rights law, which of course is an important 

part of my work, and then I intend to use counsel assisting from the bars around the country—people who are 

independent, highly qualified, but also very flexible. The reason I am doing that is that I think that will give me 

the right mix for this variety of inquiries. The inquiries I have mentioned will obviously require different topics to 

be looked at in detail. I have a number of counsel assisting—I am not prepared to reveal them just yet, but I have 

a number of people in mind, and they would simply be retained on Commonwealth rates by the Commonwealth 

and be used in that way. 

Senator XENOPHON: The previous INSLM report, headed Certain questioning and detention powers in 

relation to terrorism, October 2016, criticised the post-September 11 powers that ASIO has to detain and question 

people secretly as 'a step too far', in Mr Gyles's words, and suggested repealing the power—which, incidentally, 

ASIO has never used, according to the report. He also suggested that there be a 10-day limit on how long ASIO 

can detain people without charge. It is your first day on the job, but do you happen to have an opinion in respect 

of that report, on Mr Gyles's views that I have outlined—I think fairly—to you? 

Dr Renwick: I think all I can say at this stage is that, having read that report, the questioning and detention 

warrant powers were never used. The questioning warrant powers have been used occasionally, but you are quite 



right: he did recommend the abolition of the detention power entirely, and the warrant power, he said, should be 

put in the same terms as that available to the ACC. The view I take is that Mr Gyles's report meets the 

requirements of the monitor to report under section 6(1B)(a), namely the review of division 3 of part III of the 

ASIO Act. I have been advised that that report is now with both the government and the PJCIS for its 

consideration. It is not my intention to reopen Mr Gyles's recommendation that will stand as the findings and 

recommendations of the monitor and which will be considered by the government and the PJCIS, and of course, 

finally, you will recall that they are all subject to a sunset clause. They cease in a little over a year unless they are 

extended. So the answer is that I do not intend to revisit that. Mr Gyles's findings and recommendations stand as 

the views of my office. 

Senator XENOPHON: In so far as you do not intend to revisit it, will you have a view depending on the 

response, or lack of response, from the government after that process you have described? 

Dr Renwick: I am certainly very interested to find out what the view of both the PJCIS and the government is. 

No doubt I will be told in due course. 

Senator XENOPHON: In terms of referrals, do you see your role as taking referrals from the public and from 

members of parliament? 

Dr Renwick: Yes. 

Senator XENOPHON: If a member of the public, a member of the bar association, a member from this place 

or, indeed, the government were to write to you saying, 'We have concerns about this. What is your view in 

relation to this particular national security law,' are you constrained in what you decide to look at and the priority 

you give it? 

Dr Renwick: I will just go back a step. There are four potential sources of referrals: one is self-referral. 

Certainly, people could write to me and say, 'There is a burning issue in relation to this.' For example, the Law 

Council might write and say, 'We are most concerned about law X.' I am obviously not going to commit myself 

today, but that might result in me taking up a referral. The Prime Minister can refer matters to me—that happened 

to Mr Gyles on a number of occasions. The PJCIS can refer matters to me, and of course section 61B is a 

legislative command for me to investigate these four pieces of legislation. Beyond that, as to the detail of what I 

might investigate and in what priority, I would simply draw your attention to a couple of things: firstly, I do not 

consider complaints—that is the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—secondly, I am forbidden from 

looking at the priorities and resources of agencies; and, finally, under section 9 I have to give particular emphasis 

to provisions that have mostly been recently applied. In other words, I am to focus, as a general principle, firstly, 

if you like, on laws that have been recently used rather than laws that have sat on the statute book and have never 

been used—that is what the act says. 

Senator XENOPHON: You mentioned that you do not consider complaints as IGIS does— 

Dr Renwick: No, that is right. 

Senator XENOPHON: but that do you have a role to consider the efficacy and the approach that IGIS takes? 

So whilst you do not consider individual complaints, do you have a role in saying that the process used by IGIS is 

adequate or deficient or— 

Dr Renwick: I do not think that I do. As I read the statute, that is not part of my role. I may consult with her— 

and, indeed, I intend to do so—but it is not my role to second-guess what she does and vice versa may I say. 

Senator XENOPHON: So you cannot look at the complaint itself, but can you look at the process by which a 

complaint was dealt with and have a view about its adequacy within the context of your responsibilities? 

Dr Renwick: Not as the law stands. I am to review the operation effectiveness and implications of the listed 

laws and related laws. 

Senator XENOPHON: Thank you. I look forward to asking you more questions after May. 

Dr Renwick: Thank you, Senator. 

Senator McALLISTER: Welcome, Dr Renwick. 

Dr Renwick: Thank you, Senator. 

Senator McALLISTER: I was hoping to ask Senator Brandis about the nature of your appointment. I 

understand that it is a temporary appointment and I think you indicated that the principle reason for that is 

because a security clearance is pending, is that correct? 

Senator Brandis: It is not a temporary appointment. It is an acting appointment. 



Senator McALLISTER: I am sorry about the language—it is an acting appointment. It is an appointment that 

has been made under section 20 of the INSLM Act, is that correct? 

Senator Brandis: Apparently so. I am at pains to emphasise that it is the government's intention that Dr 

Renwick will be confirmed as the INSLM as soon as the security clearance and the level of vetting has been dealt 

with. This is merely a process matter. 

Senator McALLISTER: However, for the purposes of understanding the process, this appointment has been 

made under section 20 of the act. In the announcement by the Prime Minister, he indicated that this was an initial 

appointment of 12 months while preparatory arrangements for his permanent appointment are made. What do 

those preparatory arrangements include? You have indicated security vetting. Is there anything else? 

Senator Brandis: No, not that I am aware of. 

Senator McALLISTER: A permanent appointment under the act requires consultation with the Leader of the 

Opposition in accordance with section 11(2) of the act. Has that taken place? 

Senator Brandis: I understand that it has. I understand that a letter was written to Mr Shorten to consult him 

in relation to the matter and that there was no objection. Mr McKinnon knows a little bit more about this than me. 

Mr McKinnon: I do not know much more than that, but that is right—there has been consultation. We can 

take that on notice as to exactly what form that took, whether it was just a letter, if you would like. 

Senator McALLISTER: When the final appointment takes place under section 11 of the act, section 11(3) 

requires the Governor-General to assure himself that Dr Renwick is suitable for appointment because of his 

qualifications, training and experience. I assume that is also part of the preparatory work, or has that already been 

done? 

Senator Brandis: It is really already been done in that the government has assured itself of Dr Renwick's very 

eminent qualifications and suitability for appointment. When the appointment is made permanently—and that will 

not be in 12 months; that will be as soon as the security vetting has been confirmed, and I expect that will be a lot 

sooner than 12 months—I am sure that the government will continue to hold the same view of Dr Renwick's 

suitability as it currently does and will advise His Excellency accordingly. 

Senator McALLISTER: The Hon. Roger Gyles QC advised his intention to step down in October last year. 

Why has it taken four months for a replacement to be announced, and on an acting basis? 

Senator Brandis: The government is considered this appointment very carefully, because it is a very 

important appointment. There has been no delay of any significance in between Mr Gyles stepping down from the 

position, as he did effectively at the end of last year, and Dr Renwick's appointment, announced on Friday. So the 

answer is because of the great care the government took in relation to the selection of the right person. Can I add 

to my earlier answer please: I am reminded that I also wrote to the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, who 

wrote back to me to thank me for my letter, and one of my staff spoke to one of Mr Dreyfus's staff to let him 

know that the government had it in mind to appoint Dr Renwick. 


Australian Public Service Commission 

[17:08] 

CHAIR: I now welcome the Minister for Employment and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the 

Public Service, Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash. I welcome back the Hon. John Lloyd, the Public Service 

Commissioner, and officers of the Australian Public Service Commission. 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. 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. The committee has set 13 April 2017 as the date by 

which answers to questions on notice are to be returned. Minister, do you have an opening statement? 

Senator Cash: I do not, thank you Chair. 

CHAIR: Mr Lloyd, do you wish to make an opening statement? 

Mr Lloyd: No, Chair. 

CHAIR: Mr Lloyd, you may be familiar with some public reporting in the last few days about working hours 

and the dispute at the Australian Taxation Office. 

Mr Lloyd: Yes. 



CHAIR: I understand from the media reporting, but I invite you to correct me if I am wrong, that one of the 

sticking points between the ATO and the CPSU in negotiations has been the increasing of the work day from 4.51 

pm to 5 pm. Is that correct? 

Mr Lloyd: Yes, that was a sticking point. 

CHAIR: As a taxpayer, I am not absolutely certain I want ATO officials working any longer hours, but for 

argument's sake my understanding is this would extend their working hours from seven hours and 21 minutes to 

seven hours and 30 minutes, an additional nine minutes a day or 45 minutes a week. 

Mr Lloyd: Yes, that is right. 

CHAIR: Chris Jordan, the Commissioner of Taxation, has said: 

Clearly, the vast majority of the ATO's workforce do not 'down tools' at 4.51pm and this was a consideration in determining 

the overall productivity increases to justify the six per cent pay rise over three years. 

Nadine Flood, the secretary of the CPSU, has also said that it is 'ludicrous' to suggest that ATO employees leave 

work at 4.51 pm. If all of that is the case, what is the CPSU's objection to extending working hours by nine 

minutes in conjunction with the pay rise? 

Mr Lloyd: I am not sure. We need to ask them, I suppose. But it occurred to me when the statement was made 

that most work longer hours, so what is the objection? 

CHAIR: Is a possible explanation as to why they may be objecting that the current arrangements allow them 

to take advantage of flexitime? 

Mr Lloyd: That is possible, yes. 

CHAIR: Are you aware how many hours are in the flexibank system for departmental staff at the ATO? 

Mr Lloyd: No, I am not. 

CHAIR: Could you take it on notice. 


CHAIR: You may also need to take on notice what the cost to the ATO is of those hours. 


CHAIR: Can you also advise what reduction in flexibank hours would be if the proposed change in finish 

time was to be implemented. 


CHAIR: And again, also on notice, what the cost savings of that would be. 



Senator McALLISTER: This morning, as I indicated, we have had a couple of discussions about public 

sector bargaining. Amongst other things, we have observed that in the Department of the Senate more than 70 per 

cent of people voted against the proposed bargain. There was a similar result in DPS. Why do you think that these 

agreements have been voted down? 

Mr Lloyd: I am not sure. I think that the agencies put forward what they think is a viable proposition—it is up 

to staff to make a judgement. 

Senator McALLISTER: The Clerk of the Senate indicated that the pay offer that they put in the agreement 

that was recently voted down was at the upper limit of the bargaining policy that has been established by you and 

the minister. We had a discussion about what it would take for them procedurally—irrespective of whether or not 

it would be desirable—to increase that offer above the threshold that has been set in the bargaining policy. Could 

you explain, from a procedural perspective, what that would require. 

Mr Lloyd: I administer the bargaining policy within the framework and assess agreements as to whether they 

comply with it. If there is a proposal in the agreement that is outside the bargaining policy, then it goes to 

Minister Cash and the portfolio minister. 

Senator McALLISTER: So the senior executives who are responsible for the negotiating are not able to 

make offers outside of the bargaining framework? 

Mr Lloyd: That is right. 

Senator McALLISTER: And that includes offers of pay? 




Senator McALLISTER: So it is ultimately a decision for yourself and ultimately the minister? 

Senator Cash: As you know, the government sets the framework: two per cent, two per cent, two per cent or 

six per cent over three years and variations of the two per cent. 

Senator McALLISTER: I understand that the APSC recently approved an agreement for air traffic 

controllers. That was an agreement that was accepted by staff. Did that require an exemption to the bargaining 

policy? 

Mr Lloyd: No, it did not. Their agreement was considered to be in compliance with the policy. 

Senator McALLISTER: So you approved it. 

Mr Lloyd: I approved it, yes. 

Senator McALLISTER: Can I turn, then, to something quite separate. I want to ask you about public sector 

measures, or the work of your office, to support gender equality. The Prime Minister, at a IWD I attended talked 

about the public sector leading by example and using technology and flexible working arrangements to enable 

gender equality. What is the strategy to make sure the public sector is leading by example on that issue? 

Ms Foster: Early last year, we released a policy for gender equality, which was launched by Minister Cash 

and Dr Parkinson. It has a series of initiatives that are designed to support gender equality in the workplace and 

put the APS in the forefront. I can run through some of those if you would like me to. 

Senator McALLISTER: That would be great; very quickly, because I am conscious of the time. I asked the 

question so I could understand the position, but we do not have lots of time. 

Mr Lloyd: There is a range of issues around driving a supportive, enabling culture, because our assessment 

was that you can do all sorts of things to tick boxes, but unless you actually have the right culture in the 

organisation, it will not take effect. The most significant of those is a secretaries' council for equality and 

diversity, which is attended by all secretaries across the Commonwealth and which drives the initiatives in their 

agencies. There is a series of steps about reaching equality. They will have things like tailored, ambitious targets 

for each agency to reach. There is the development and publication of plans by every agency, so quite specific 

actions that everyone has to take. There is a series of things around embedding gender equality within our 

innovation strategies and putting measures in place to increase the take-up of flexible work arrangements. One of 

our assessments was that flexibility, again, was key to success in this space. 

Senator McALLISTER: On that question, I have had very direct representations from staff concerned that 

the bargaining approach in agencies like DHS is undermining that ability for women to take up flexible work, 

because it removes the ability for staff and their representatives to influence the allocation and location of shifts 

for those people working flexibly and on part-time work. Are you concerned about those issues, Mr Lloyd? 

Mr Lloyd: I have not had representations on that. We quite unequivocally support flexibility to support those 

types of working family balance issues, but— 

Senator McALLISTER: I suppose the point that is being made—and I am sorry to interrupt you; we are a 

little pressed for time—is not that people do not want to work flexibly, but that it is not possible to organise child 

care or negotiate after-school care arrangements if you do not have sufficient notice or any control over what your 

shifts are likely to be and where they will be located. This is the concern about the approach being taken in the 

bargaining in DHS. 

Mr Lloyd: I have not had those representations put to me, so I cannot comment about them. As I say, 

whatever we do and however management handles these sorts of issues, it should be to accommodate as much 

flexibility as possible. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is that something you will undertake to look into then, if you have not heard about it 

so far? 

Mr Lloyd: Yes, we can contact the Department of Human Services and probe it. 

Senator McALLISTER: Would you be interested in hearing from the staff directly, or their representatives, 

about those issues? 

Mr Lloyd: Yes, I have no hesitation in that. They can raise it, of course, with their own agency. I will talk to 

the agency. If they want to make representations to us directly, they are welcome to do that. 

Ms Foster: We have just done a series of presentations around the country attended by a large number of DHS 

staff, with a significant amount of time for questions at the end of that period. I have just done four of those 

myself. I think the commissioner has done three to date. Certainly I had no questions. I spoke about the issues 

around flexibility with those staff directly. 



Senator McALLISTER: I will ask you about something quite different. This morning I sought advice from 

the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet around the BRANDit competition in the Public Service. They 

indicated that this is an initiative from you, Mr Lloyd, and that I should direct my questions to you, is that correct? 

Mr Lloyd: Yes. Certainly. I might get Ms Foster to answer some of the questions. She is the expert. 

Senator McALLISTER: Whose idea was it to have a competition to develop a brand and a slogan for the 

APS? 

Ms Foster: That was generated by one of the teams in the commission. It was in response to a 

recommendation of an independent review of workforce management practices in the APS, which was conducted 

by a woman called Sandra McPhee and took place over the course of 2014. It was launched in early 2015. 

Amongst other things, one of her recommendations was that to be competitive in today's marketplace the APSC 

needed to really think hard about how it was presenting itself and how it was marketing itself in the marketplace. 

Senator McALLISTER: Should we understand that the answer to all of this hard thinking is that it has been 

recommended that you should have a brand or a slogan? 

Ms Foster: It is part of a suite of responses to that, which includes everything from experimenting with 

different ways of recruiting people—you will have heard, over the past year or so, people talking about using onepage 

pitches rather than lengthy applications with lots of selection criteria, which turn off members of the general 

public who do not know how to crack the APS code as it were—through to doing some trials with de-identified 

applications to see if there is gender bias or other bias being introduced. We are upgrading our APS jobs website, 

which has not been an easy to use and attractive portal for potential applicants to the Public Service. It is one of 

those things in a suite of activities that we are undertaking. 

Senator McALLISTER: The website around the BRANDit competition suggests that one of the benefits 

from this will be to reduce turnover—is that staff turnover? The website specifically reads: 

A strong employment brand sets an organisation apart from its competitors. It appeals to a diverse range of employees we 

want to attract and retain. It builds awareness and employee engagement and reduces turnover. 

Does that refer to staff turnover? 

Ms Foster: Yes, it does. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is there a problem with employees leaving? 

Ms Foster: All agencies strive to maintain their strong employees for the longest period possible, or the period 

in which they are contributing strongly and reduce turnover of valued staff. As I said, it is not that any one thing 

will be a silver bullet, but there is a suite of things which together will help to sell the benefits of working in the 

APS. One of the terrific things about the BRANDit competition was that we had over 700 entries from staff 

across the APS, and they were overwhelmingly a really positive reflection on why people love working for the 

APS. That is the kind of sense that we are trying to project, so that we can have the best possible Public Service 

serving the government and the people. 

Senator McALLISTER: I understand the goal for the project is to find a brand that is positive, uplifting and 

meaningful. Are there any entries or feedback that you would deem not positive? 

Ms Foster: Out of the 700-plus entries, we had four which you might characterise as being in some way 

negative or cynical, which we thought was a pretty outstanding result. 

Senator McALLISTER: What does the winner receive? 

Ms Foster: Pride and glory. 

Senator McALLISTER: That is it? 

CHAIR: They are doing their civic duty. 

Ms Foster: In fact, most of them were just thrilled to have a chance to actually put their views forward. 

Senator McALLISTER: Does the winner get a free ticket to the event where the winner is announced, or do 

they have to pay? I notice that there is a cost for attending the event where it will be announced. 

Ms Foster: There is a cost. I will ask Ms Walsh if she knows if we are charging the potential winner or if, in 

fact, the potential winner knows. I think that the five shortlisted entries know that they have been shortlisted. 

Ms Walsh: The five finalists have been invited, and my understanding is that they have been invited at no 

cost. 

Senator McALLISTER: So they get a free ticket, but there is no free ticket for everybody else—they have to 

pay. And how much do they have to pay to come and find out what the slogan will be? 



Ms Walsh: I cannot recall off the top of my head. Can I take that on notice? 

Senator McALLISTER: Perhaps you can do that. 

Ms Foster: The event is also to talk about the Unlocking potential report, which was this review of workforce 

management practices, to talk about what has been achieved and to have a conversation with staff, essentially 

about how we are progressing with our attempts to really lift our workforce management practices. 

Senator McALLISTER: How many staff are working on this project to develop the brand? Is it resource 

intensive? 

Ms Foster: Not at all. We have a small team that works on reform issues more generally. After you asked the 

questions of DPM&C this morning they did a rough estimate of what it might have taken, and the sort of rough 

estimate was perhaps one person for two weeks over the course of many months—so at hours at a time, totalling 

perhaps two weeks work. Clearly, by drawing on entries from across the APS we have also avoided the costs of 

any kind of marketing or research. 

Senator McALLISTER: I find this kind of fascinating. I think there is a lot of turmoil, and I do speak to 

people in the Public Service who are upset about the way that their skills are being recognised, or not being 

recognised, through the enterprise bargaining process. I suppose my observation would be that it is hard to see 

how a brand can overcome the overwhelming message that comes from government all the time—that the skills 

and capabilities of public servants are not being recognised. Do you think that is really going to work? 

Ms Foster: That is not the overall impression that we have, and we talk to our staff across the APS a lot. 

There is a lot of folks who are very happy and fulfilled by the work that they do. Our census— 

Senator McALLISTER: They surely would like to be paid, wouldn't they? 

Ms Foster: Our census, though, shows that we have maintained a very high level of engagement from the 

previous year to the last collection of results last year, so the indications we are getting are those of a positive, 

engaged workforce that is responding really well to the various reform initiatives that we are undertaking. 

BRANDit is simply one small one that happens to have hit the press. 

Senator McALLISTER: I note that Emergent and BMF Advertising have some role in this project. Are they 

being paid for that? 

Ms Foster: No, they are not. An internal team did an initial cut of the entries and we asked the commissioner, 

Mr Lloyd, and Martin Parkinson as head of DPM&C, to look at a shortlist of entries. But we also wanted to have 

some different perspectives, so we asked two different people who each brought a different perspective—one with 

a strong marketing background and another who is a younger person who runs her own company and is in the 

business of attracting the best of people that she can—and they agreed to participate. From memory, the process 

only took us about an hour, maybe an hour-and-a-half. 

Senator McALLISTER: Do you have a cost of the initiative—a total cost? 

Ms Foster: The only costs that we have accrued, apart from this being the normal work of our reform team, 

are we flew down Ms Ransom and Irina, the other judge that we engaged. Sorry, I have temporarily forgotten— 

Mr Lloyd: Holly Ransom and Irina Hayward. 

Ms Foster: Hayward, that is right. And there was a minimal cost for that. The flights were $1,325. That 

includes travel to participate in the judging and then coming to the event on 1 March and participating in 

discussion around the entries. Then, as I said, we have estimated it is perhaps two weeks of one staff member's 

time, and I do not have the calculation of what that costs. If they had not been doing this they would have been 

working on another reform initiative. 

Senator McALLISTER: This is a recommendation that you have made arising from Ms McPhee's review. It 

is a recommendation that was first put by the APSC. Did you make the decision, Mr Lloyd, to proceed? 

Mr Lloyd: Yes. I got a submission from senior staff and felt it was a worthwhile exercise and decided we 

should to it. 

Senator McALLISTER: Did you discuss it with the minister? 

Mr Lloyd: I am not sure. 

Ms Foster: We certainly did not seek the minister's permission but we meet with the minister regularly and 

talk to her about the things that we are doing. Whether or not that was part of those discussions I cannot recall. 

Senator McALLISTER: Could you check? You have records of your discussions, I suppose. 



Senator Cash: We discuss a number of ways, I suppose, that the APS can be modernised et cetera, exciting 

new innovative things, so this may well have come up in discussions. But a number of issues came up in 

discussions following on from Sandra McPhee's report, in very genuine terms, to ensure that the APS is, basically, 

as inclusive as possible. 

Senator McALLISTER: The report has been panned for being a jargon-laden and rather empty document. 

Everyone will have a different opinion but the critics say it is full of words like 'driving high-performance 

workforce agility', 'compelling employee value proposition', 'portfolio careers', 'linear upwards promotion' and 

'sophisticated data analytics'. These are all impressive management-consulting words. But, when it comes down to 

it, you have a public sector that has been completely unable, in many instances, to land reasonable new enterprise 

agreements. Enterprise bargaining has been stuck for years without certainty, without opportunities for pay 

increases and without promotions for staff. I am just surprised at the weight being provided to what would seem 

to be quite superficial interventions when there are these quite substantive issues at stake. 

Mr Lloyd: I would reject the description of the unlikely potential. I thought it was quite a substantial and 

incisive report, in some ways, of making sure that we had a Public Service that was equipped to deal with a more 

modern complex working environment, which we have. And it covered a whole range of issues. We have touched 

on talent development, recruitment, performance management, increasing flexibility, and better capability in our 

human resources. I thought it was a quite incisive and very good report. 

The event on BRANDit is on Wednesday, 1 March, and I could extend an invitation for you to attend, if you 

like. It is down here at the gallery, late in the afternoon, I think. 

Senator McALLISTER: In Canberra on 1 March. 

Senator MOORE: When we find out how much it costs, Mr Lloyd! 

Mr Lloyd: No, it will be free. There is no charge. 

CHAIR: I think Ms Walsh is seeking the call on that. 

Ms Walsh: I can answer the question about the cost. It is an event that we are hosting jointly with the ACT 

branch of IPAA. They have arranged the venue, and we have worked with them. The cost for IPAA members is 

$65 and for nonmembers it is $130. 

Senator MOORE: Mr Lloyd, can I find out any engagement of yours in the Sustainable Development Goals? 

I am asking for a particular reason: the department is coordinating agencies across the public sector who may 

have some input into the SDGs and into our approach domestically and internationally. I am interested to know 

whether the PSC is involved, because of the genuine interest in effective public sector management, which is one 

of the performance indicators for the SDGs. Do you know whether your organisation is part of that group? 

Mr Lloyd: Which department? 

Senator MOORE: PM&C. 

Mr Lloyd: PM&C—okay. No I do not, off the top of my head. I would have to take that on notice. 

Senator MOORE: That would be fine, I just wanted to ask the question. Also, is there anyone in your 

organisation who is working on or looking at things like international public sector and things like the SDGs? 

Mr Lloyd: We have a corporate area which covers corporate matters. I imagine anything like that would be 

dealt with in our corporate group. 

Senator MOORE: Can I put that on notice then, Mr Lloyd? Could I get any information from the PSC about 

your engagement, particularly in that area of effective public sector management? 


Senator SMITH: I might get an update if that is okay? Mr Lloyd, can you tell me how many agreements have 

been put to a vote since the last election—since July 2016? 

Mr Lloyd: I have some data here. 

Senator SMITH: We love the data! 

Mr Lloyd: Yes! I do not have data since the election as such. I know that there are now 85 agreements which 

have been voted up. 

Senator SMITH: Eighty-five have been voted up. 

Mr Lloyd: In total, yes. And 74 of those have been since the policy was revised in November 2015. 

Senator SMITH: What would you characterise as the factors of success for those agreements that have been 

voted up? 



Mr Lloyd: I think it is probably where management and employees recognise that they have a joint 

responsibility to have fair pay and conditions for the staff, but also for the staff to be contributing by working 

flexibly and looking for opportunities to improve the productivity and efficiency of their organisation. I think 

often it is where there is generally effective communication between management and the staff. And of course, 

some of those agreements that have got up have been in agencies where they were initially voted down. 

I think also that the staff probably recognise that it is good to get an agreement up, and that voting it down just 

means there is no pay rise for a long time. I think that is also a factor in the number of these agreements. 

Senator SMITH: Nadine Flood could be accused of doing the government's work, really, in imposing wage 

freezes across the public service sector with the CPSU's position of not allowing agreements to be voted up. Are 

there any signs of increasing frustration across the public sector with regard to the campaign that has been run by 

the CPSU? 

Mr Lloyd: I do think that in some agencies where it was voted down and it has been a close vote that the staff 

who were in favour of it and wanted to get a pay increase and to get the money reflected in their superannuation 

and leave entitlements are generally frustrated. But on the other hand, people recognise that it is a right to vote. It 

is a free country and they vote. 

Senator SMITH: At the last Senate estimates hearing you were able to provide us with some information 

about salary increases that might have been lost to employees as a result of continued industrial disputation. I 

think we might have used the APS level 5 as a barometer. Can you give us an update on any information? 

Mr Lloyd: Yes. I have some data here—in-the-round figures. An APS4 who could have voted up an 

agreement from July 2015, and has not, would have lost $3,130 by our figures. An APS6 officer would have lost 

$3,950 to the nearest $10, and an EL1 employee would have lost $4,900 by not having an agreement available 

from July 2015. 

Senator SMITH: Considerable losses to working families, I would imagine. 


Senator SMITH: Do we have a little more time, Chair? 

CHAIR: A moment or two. 

Senator MOORE: I have one simple follow-up on that one, but I am happy for Senator Smith to finish his 

questions first. 

Senator SMITH: I was going to move to a slightly different subject. What did you have? 

Senator MOORE: Mr Lloyd, can I clarify that the information you have just read into the record is publicly 

available and out there? 

Mr Lloyd: It is based on— 

Senator MOORE: I am not asking where it is from. It is just whether what you have told us people know 

about and it is out there being talked about. I just want to make it clear that people know this information when 

they are making their votes. 

Mr Lloyd: I envisage that management would be informing staff of the impact. 

Senator MOORE: I am sure they are. Thanks. 

Senator SMITH: I was going to go to some questions about the employee living cost index. I am interested in 

the comparator. We have talked about lost income, but I am interested in cost-of-living pressures. 

Mr Lloyd: I can go through some of what we have discussed in previous hearings. The median APS wage 

movement in the 10 years to December 2015 was 39.8 per cent. The wage price index in the public sector 

increased in that 10-year period by 41.3 per cent. In comparison, the consumer price index increased by 29.1 per 

cent and the employee living cost index by 32.5 per cent. So in that 10 year period—December 2015 is used for 

the latest comparative figures—there is quite a margin of wages above prices. Of course, the recent CPI has come 

off. The CPI in the year to December 2016 increased by 1.5 per cent, and the employee living cost index to 

December 2016 increased only one per cent. The last seasonally adjusted wage price index in the private sector 

was 1.8. That is in the year to December 2016. The seasonally adjusted wage price index for the public sector, 

which is both state and federal, increased by 2.3 per cent. 

Senator SMITH: Excellent. Thank you. 

CHAIR: If there are no further questions for the Public Service Commission, I thank them. 




[17:44] 

CHAIR: I welcome Senator Cash in her capacity as Minister for Women, and officers of the Office for 

Women within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Minister, do you have an opening statement? 

Senator Cash: I do not. 

CHAIR: Do any of the officers wish to make an opening statement? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: No, we do not. 

Senator HINCH: Senator Cash, it has been reported that the National Affordable Housing Agreement will be 

either cut, amended or played around with, and that would include the loss of $110 million in federal funding for 

women's refuges—is that correct? 

Senator Cash: Those questions are best put to DSS estimates, because they are responsible for that particular 

portfolio. 

Senator HINCH: It does affect women. Refuges affect women. 

Senator Cash: It does, but the Office for Women is not responsible for refuges. The funding is run by DSS. I 

am not quite sure when DSS— 

Senator McKENZIE: They will be Wednesday-Thursday. 

Senator Cash: Wednesday-Thursday. We would normally refer those questions to DSS. 

Senator HINCH: All right. So questions about the reduction of money, $30 million, from the community 

legal services should be the same thing? 

Senator Cash: Yes, DSS. 

Senator McKENZIE: The legal services—is that A-G's? 

Senator Cash: Yes, sorry. They would be Attorney-General's 

Senator HINCH: One area I can talk to you about, though, is that Professor Elizabeth Elliott from Westmead 

Children's Hospital says that this year FGM, female genital mutilation, has increased in this country, and 20 per 

cent of girls who saw the doctors had had parts of them removed. Where does your office stand on this? I have the 

figures saying that there are now more than 80,000 women and girls in Australia who may have been subjected to 

FGM, that there are still about 5,000 girls under the age of 15 who may be in danger and that, with the number of 

cases referred to the authorities as child abuse, only 13 girls have been referred to child protection agencies in the 

last seven years. 

Senator Cash: Again, I do apologise, Senator Hinch. That actually sits with the Attorney-General's portfolio 

and the Minister for Justice. They would be better equipped in actually providing you with all of the data that you 

are looking for. In terms of where we sit, we obviously agree that we have the framework in place. It is a criminal 

offence in Australia and we do not support female genital mutilation, but the actual policy sits with the Minister 

for Justice. 

Senator HINCH: Okay. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: I just want to double-check that we are speaking about the Children's 

eSafety Commissioner. 

CHAIR: No, this is the Office for Women. 

Senator Cash: The Children's eSafety Commissioner is Communications. 

Senator McKENZIE: And they are tomorrow, in E&C. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Okay. 

CHAIR: Senator McKenzie knows this well. 

Senator McKENZIE: I have been here too long! 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: All right. The areas where I have questions for the Office for Women are 

gender balance on boards— 

Senator Cash: Absolutely. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: and also the national framework for AVOs, apprehended violence orders. 

Those are the two areas. 



Senator Cash: We could probably talk about the discussions with COAG et cetera. That is also, 

unfortunately, more properly with A-G's or DSS. 

Ms McIntyre: We have some information. 

Senator Cash: We will provide you with the information that we can. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Great. Thank you. In relation to gender balance on boards, we had some 

discussion last estimates about the Office for Women doing some work identifying barriers that women may face 

in getting appointed to boards and that boards may face in appointing women. During that discussion, Minister 

Cash, you told us that PM&C were considering options which would require nominating bodies to explain the 

appointment of a man if that particular board were not meeting their gender target. I was just curious to know 

what options have been identified as part of that discussion. 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: I will get to your question. I guess the critical thing to note is that the government has 

exceeded its target of 40 per cent of women on boards; we are up to 41.1 per cent as of the end of last year, 31 

December, which is terrific. The government is now working towards its target of 50 per cent of women on 

government boards. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Is that at the level of each individual board? 

Senator Cash: No, that is an overall target. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: The 40 per cent is an individual board target, and it is 50 per cent 

overall? 

Senator Cash: Correct. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: All right. I just wanted to clarify that comment about the 41 per cent. 

Senator Cash: Sorry, that is also overall. 

Ms McIntyre: That is 31 December. That is the current figure, which is an increase on 30 June. At 30 June it 

was sitting at 40.5, and at 31 December—so in that six-month period—it has increased to 41.1. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Have any lessons been learned from that time that you can tell us about 

in terms of getting to that point with the female employees? 

Senator Cash: I am happy to jump in there, and then I will defer to the advisers. As we spoke about before, 

one of the things I instituted when I first came into the portfolio was writing to the varying bodies that can 

nominate boards and advising them of the government's targeting in relation to gender diversity. We continue to 

do that. I bring it to all cabinet ministers. Whenever we have a nomination come up from a board, we ensure that 

the particular nominating body is aware of the government's gender diversity target. In fact, I have even taken the 

recent step, in relation to a board, of saying that we will appoint the nominee, who is a male, for three months but 

after three months we expect them to provide us with a female. So certainly we are trying to put as much 

influence as we can. 

One issue that arises, though, in relation to government boards where the government is not the nominator is 

that ultimately it is for the body nominating to provide the nomination. The government is often not able to put 

forward that nomination. So one of the other things I think we discussed at the last estimates and that will 

commence on 1 July is going live in relation to also disclosing who the nominating bodies are for government 

boards and what their record is in relation to gender targets. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Does that include non-government appointees? I am aware that employer 

organisations— 

Senator Cash: For example, a union, an employee representative or an employer body is exactly what it is 

designed for. Otherwise it is very difficult in terms of transparency. You see a particular figure that says 33 per 

cent, but you do not necessarily know what that 33 per cent actually is. The government may only have been able 

to appoint two people to that board. There could be six, seven or eight people who are appointed by outside 

bodies. So we are taking that next step, and we will also now require transparency in relation to the nominating 

bodies. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Does that require any legislative change to implement that level of 

reporting in relation to appointments to boards? 

Senator Cash: I do not believe it does, no. 

Ms McIntyre: The reporting is not a statutory requirement, so in terms of making that change the minister has 

advised people that we will be doing that reporting and we will be commencing it from the next reporting period. 



Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: All right. I look forward to seeing the results of that. I think that, at least 

in my research, has been an area that I have struggled to get information on. 

Senator Cash: The other thing we have done, in terms of our writing to ministers and external bodies, is that I 

have approved an, 'If not, why not?' So they actually have to justify the appointment that they make if it is not a 

suitably qualified female. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Thank you. I might move on now to the AVO database. Is that okay, 

Chair? 

CHAIR: I will just check if Senator Moore has questions related to the ones that have been asked. 

Senator MOORE: My boards ones are on notice. 

CHAIR: Okay, we will come to you next, Senator Moore. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Last estimates, we spoke about a national domestic violence order 

database. 

Senator Cash: Correct. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: At that stage, it was not up and running, but you were looking to have it 

up and running by the end of 2016. Is that right? I think that was the original plan. 

Senator Cash: That is actually a decision by COAG in relation to the national domestic violence order 

database. To get the best information, we will have to refer that over to DSS, because DSS—or A-G's? 

Ms McIntyre: No, it is A-G's. 

Senator Cash: Sorry, A-G's is responsible for it. But Ms McIntyre might have some information for you. 

Ms McIntyre: In the short term, there was an interim information-sharing system which was developed and 

completed at the end of last year, so now it is into the second stage of rolling that out. That is all the information 

that I have. You would have to go to A-G's to get more detailed information. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Okay. I had a question in relation to some funding that was allocated to 

CrimTrac to develop this system. Is this the right place to ask it? 

Ms McIntyre: It is, for that pilot. That was to develop the interim system. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: So that was the $3 million back in 2014? 

Ms McIntyre: That is correct. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: And that interim system has been completed. 

Ms McIntyre: That is my understanding. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: And now you are moving on to the second stage. 

Senator Cash: But again you should raise it with A-G's, and they will able to give you more in-depth 

information. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: I suppose my follow-on questions from that were: what were some of the 

barriers for there being a complete national database? I know in Western Australia, for example, they have not 

passed legislation yet. 

Senator Cash: It is a really interesting question that you raise. It sounds so easy—a national database; again, 

the better department is A-G's because it controls this—but one of the issues in the first instance was that not 

everybody had a computer database. It was absolutely fascinating that a jurisdiction was still doing things in 

paper, so it had to build its own database before it could even consider it. We can get you the list of barriers but 

we need to speak with A-G's. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Which state was that? 

Senator Cash: My understanding is, and I would hate to verbal the particular state in case it is not, is that it 

was Tasmania, but I will ensure that we get the information so I am not verballing them. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Do you know whether they have an electronic database now. 

Senator Cash: You will have to direct that to A-G's. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: I am aware that at the moment we are up to the third action plan to 

reduce violence against women and children, which covers the period 2016 to 2019. The second action plan 

covered the period 2013 to 2016. Under these plans, I understand, there were annual reports presented for each 

year of the plan and then there was supposed to be an overall review of how the entire plan went. The overall 

review for the first action plan has been completed. Has it been completed for the second action plan? 



Ms McIntyre: That would be a question to put to DSS, because they are undertaking that review. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: I suppose then if I have a question about the implementation of the third 

action plan it is DSS I need to ask about it? 

Ms McIntyre: We have some high-level information, but the detail would have to go to them. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: So the high-level information you have about the implementation plan, is 

there anything you can share with us? How far into developing the plan are you? 

Ms McIntyre: The third action plan was released at the COAG summit on 28 October last year, and $100 

million was set aside under that plan. I can talk to you about the measures, if that is what you are interested in. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: I have had a read through some of the measures in the plan, which takes 

me to my next question, which is on some measures in relation to addressing perpetrator behaviour. In the third 

action plan, examples are given for particular states, for the Northern Territory, Tasmania, a Commonwealth 

scheme, the ACT, Victoria and New South Wales. Based on that list, there is nothing indicating programs exist in 

South Australia, Queensland and WA. Is that because programs do not exist there or they just were not included 

in the report? 

Ms McIntyre: It is more the fact that if we had included a program in every state under each of the priority 

areas the action plan would be much longer. It is not that they do not exist but that examples were picked for each 

state to go in the action plan. DSS chaired the working group that put that together. That is my understanding, but 

it would be appropriate to ask them that question. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: You just touched on working groups. In the plan it says that working 

groups will be established to monitor the performance and achievement of some of the goals set out in plan. Have 

any working groups been established under the third action plan specifically? 

Ms McIntyre: There is an implementation working group that exists that has representatives from the 

Commonwealth, states and territories that put the plan together. My understanding is that that group would 

continue as the working group as it was implemented. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: It says that working groups will focus on workforce strategies, and then 

housing and homelessness, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, sexual violence, children and 

parenting. Will individual workgroups be established for each of those items? 

Ms McIntyre: Potentially; I do not have the detail. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: So it is DSS? 

Ms McIntyre: Yes. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Okay, I will try DSS. 

Senator MOORE: All my stuff on administration—about your number of people and all that kind of stuff—is 

going on notice. I want to talk about the Fair Work decision. Minister, this crosses both your departments. 

Senator Cash: Which decision is that? 

Senator MOORE: The recent one on penalty rates. I want to know whether the Office for Women has done 

any work—considering that this has been going on for a long time; it is not just the decision that was announced 

recently—looking at the particular impact on penalty rates and women workers? 

Ms McIntyre: We have not done any specifically. The Department of Employment has provided some 

information on the percentage of women who work in the industries that are affected by those breaks. I do not 

have the stats on me, but I do not think there is a huge gender segregation in terms of those workforces. 

Senator MOORE: Many of the questions that you have been asked form part of my ongoing discussion with 

the Office for Women in terms of the role of the office, looking at all elements of policy that impact on women— 

and there is the frustration of having it batted back and going to another department. Minister, you would know— 

and I am sure that the office would know—about the recent annual wage review case that the Fair Work 

Commission handed down. You quite rightly asked, 'Which case,' because they have been doing it quite regularly. 

But, in relation to that one, the Fair Work Commission actually stated in their judgement: 

Women are disproportionately represented among both the low paid and award reliant and hence an increase in minimum 

wages is likely to promote pay equity. 

If that was the judgement of the Fair Work Commission about low payment, I would be interested to see whether 

the Office for Women has done any work to look at whether that data was accurate and whether it would flow on. 

It would seem to me that 'low paid' and 'award reliant' would tend to cover a lot of the people, women and men, 

who are affected by the Fair Work Commission penalty rate one. 



Senator Cash: It would possibly be more the employment department that would undertake that. 

Senator MOORE: Minister, I am asking particularly, and I will ask you in your other hat, about the Office for 

Women's work looking at the impact of women's wages and, in particular, with one of the alliances which is 

particularly focused on women in employment. Has there been any work that you have done or commissioned on 

this issue? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: The Office for Women does not tend to do modelling itself; it commissions modelling 

from other departments or requests modelling from other departments. 

Senator MOORE: That is what I would expect. You do not have a modelling unit. 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: No. 

Senator MOORE: So is it work that you have asked to be done? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: We have not commissioned any modelling of the sort you have just described. 

Senator MOORE: In a similar vein, then you do not have any assessment yet to give to the minister about 

how you perceive this particular decision will impact on women? 

Senator Cash: In relation to that, I have actually commissioned the Department of Employment to undertake 

that analysis. 

Senator MOORE: Particularly on that analysis? 

Senator Cash: On that analysis but, in particular, looking at the reasoning with the decision, which does go to 

exactly what you were saying. In what President Ross states, he looks at the evidence that is put forward, 

particularly by UnitedVoice, in relation to the disproportionate impact on women as being affected by Sunday, 

and he actually rejects that. 

Senator MOORE: Commissioner Ross. 

Senator Cash: I am happy to refer you to the paragraphs in the decision. 

Senator MOORE: I have seen the paragraphs. 

Senator Cash: He actually rejects that and states that there is not the disproportionate— 

Senator MOORE: So, Minister, you have actually commissioned the Department of Employment to have a 

further look at that? 

Senator Cash: Yes. 

Senator MOORE: Another area in terms of the impact on women and particularly at the lower rates is the 

impact on the wage gap. Have you looked at doing any particular work on whether this decision would have an 

impact on the wage gap and if more women are affected? We are talking in 'ifs' because I am struggling to see 

whether there has actually been any work commissioned in this space about whether the wage gap could be 

impacted by having a larger number of women losing money. 

Senator Cash: I have commissioned the Department of Employment— 

Senator MOORE: So you have commissioned them to do that work? Does the Office for Women have any 

role in this space? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: Not in terms of managing gender pay gap policy. That sits with the employment 

department. 

Senator MOORE: So, on the impact on women in the community of policy change in this space, the Office 

for Women has no role? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: The Office for Women does not manage the policy that is set by government, but it has 

an enduring interest in looking at the impacts on women and, in this case, in terms of gender pay gap. Once the 

employment department has managed the modelling and done the analysis, the Office for Women will be looking 

at that. 

Senator MOORE: So the Office for Women will receive the information that has been done. What will the 

Office for Women do with that? 

Ms McIntyre: It depends on what the modelling is, but obviously that then is the evidence that allows us to 

prepare advice for the minister about any future policy and policy changes. 

Senator MOORE: So at this stage there is nothing that you have on your agenda, but I just want to get the 

process right, Minister—and you will probably get the same questions tomorrow. 



Senator Cash: Basically, the Office for Women obviously has an overarching role in terms of meeting our 

G20 commitment, looking at how we can reduce— 

Senator MOORE: That was where I was going. 

Senator Cash: the gender pay gap. But in terms of my discussions with the Office for Women, when we go to 

commission any modelling et cetera we have to go to different departments. 

Senator MOORE: But then it all comes back? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: That is right. 

Senator MOORE: When it all comes back— 

Senator Cash: They will look at it and provide me with actual advice in terms of how it may impact upon 

meeting the G20 commitment or how it may impact on the gender pay gap et cetera. 

Senator MOORE: In terms of that advice, is any of that public? 

Senator Cash: The final policy decisions would obviously be public, but the advice given to me that I would 

ultimately take to cabinet would not be. 

Senator MOORE: But with particular pieces of work around modelling, would there be a way of asking for 

that? 

Senator Cash: I could take that on notice. 

Senator MOORE: That is where we are going. Where is the data that is being produced for discussion that 

leads to any kind of knowledge about the impact on women in the community? 

Senator Cash: I can take that on notice too and probably direct it to the employment department. 

Senator MOORE: Sure. I have some questions on funding— 

Senator Cash: WLDS? 

Senator MOORE: We will get to those; they are definitely on the list. It is actually to do with the portfolio 

additional estimates statement. The original portfolio budget statement in 2016 had administered expenses, the 

magic graph, across the top, which gave for 2015-16 estimated actual expenditure of 3,555 for the Office for 

Women for the out years. The portfolio additional estimates statement on page 25 has the actual expenditure for 

the Office for Women in 2015-16 as 2,794. I am wanting to find out what that difference is, because it is not just a 

couple of hundred for rounding; that is a significant difference. Can you tell me why there was underspend in that 

space? 

Ms McIntyre: Part of the underspend in that year was when the election was called, so some of the funding 

that would otherwise have occurred at the end of the year did not occur. 

Senator MOORE: Can you just help me out. The election was called and it was, as we all remember, a 

particularly long election. But, in terms of expenditure on women's projects, I am interested to see what that 

impact would be—because it was not a surprise. What kinds of things would you have been doing to spend the 

money that did not happen? 

Ms McIntyre: I do not have the detail of those particular projects. With the Women in Public Service 

initiative we were waiting on the guidelines to come out of the Woodrow Wilson centre in the States, and they 

were not received in time for funding to be allocated. 

Senator MOORE: Can I get data on how much the delay was on that particular project? 

Ms McIntyre: That was about $300,000. 

Senator MOORE: That is one you can actually identify. 

Ms McIntyre: That is right. 

Senator MOORE: My understanding is that that money flowed into the next year and was not just lost. 

Ms McIntyre: No, it did not flow. As you would know, if administered funds are not spent they lapse. 

Senator MOORE: That is why I asked the question. So, in effect, a delay in data from another agency cost 

women $300,000? 

Ms McIntyre: That is the case. 

Senator MOORE: Can I find out what the time frame was and the lead-in to that? I would really like to know 

what the delay was in that space. 

Ms McIntyre: I can take that on notice. 



Senator MOORE: I would expect it. 

Ms McIntyre: It was well into this financial year before we had the guidelines. 

Senator MOORE: Can we also find out what the time involved was and when they were asked for it and 

whether there was a time that we realised it was not coming. That is a significant underspend in, as we know, a 

limited budget. Can you tell me how much is allocated to the Women's Leadership and Development Strategy? 

Ms McIntyre: The full amount in the forward estimates—approximately $3 million, with $300,000 being 

allocated in 2016-17 to the Women in Public Service partnership. 

Senator MOORE: Which is the one that you had to go from— 

Ms McIntyre: That is right, and then there is $3.3 million for the Women's Leadership and Development 

Strategy, from which the alliance payments are made. 

Senator MOORE: Can I get on notice the information on the women in leadership and women in public 

sector strategies, because it is one of my favourite projects. Can I also get you to have a look at what other things 

were delayed, because it is more than 300 grand—the difference between what was allocated and what was spent. 

Ms McIntyre: There will be a long list, because there would have been a number of projects on hand at that 

time, but we can provide that to you. 

Senator MOORE: Can I also find out about the state of those projects now. 

The National Women's Alliances—thank you for the reinstatement of the multicultural one. That is something 

that we have talked about a fair bit in this space, so thank you very much. Can you tell me how much funding is 

put for the women's alliances. I am wanting to know whether they have had increased funding or there has been 

any change, because, that also, as you know, has been a longstanding agenda from the alliances about what they 

need to do their jobs. Can I get the spread of how much has been given to the alliances and whether it is an 

increase or not. 

Ms McIntyre: Are you after current year funding, or what the future funding will— 

Senator MOORE: Both. 

Ms McIntyre: Currently, funding is—it is an odd amount and I do not think I have it in my notes— 

approximately $285,000 per alliance. 

Senator MOORE: How does that compare to the previous funding? 

Ms McIntyre: That is the same as last year, I understand. In terms of the new grant round, obviously, funding 

will not be decided until that round is complete. 

Senator MOORE: We now have the number of alliances, but they are receiving the same amount of money 

to do their work over the period. Is that an accurate statement? 

Ms McIntyre: For the current five alliances, their funding has not changed. In the new round, there will be 

five alliances competing for the same funding in a closed round, and there will be an open round to establish the 

sixth CALD alliance. 

Senator MOORE: Tell me how that works, because in the original funding, there were six alliances all 

receiving money, then one was frozen and not filled. What we were told was that the money that had not been 

expended for that one was reallocated across the others to make up their allocation. We now have a decision to 

have the sixth—which I refer to as the sixth original alliances—tell me, then, how the funding operates. 

Ms McIntyre: The funding all comes out of the WLDS pool. The funding for the sixth alliance will come out 

of that pool. 

Senator MOORE: So it is not new money? 

Ms McIntyre: There is no new money. 

Senator MOORE: No new money, so— 

Senator Cash: It is part of the continual budget. Can we just raise one other issue with you, which I 

personally think is quite innovative for disability. 

Senator MOORE: Yes. 

Ms McIntyre: The minister has also agreed to earmark or specifically quarantine funding for collaboration 

between the six alliances and the disability sector. There will be a specific amount of money allocated for projects 

related to women with a disability. 

Senator MOORE: And that will come out of the same bucket? 



Ms McIntyre: It will come out of the same— 

Senator MOORE: It is another allocation; really, it is another grant out of women's fund. 

Ms McIntyre: It will be a grant out of the WLDS. 

Senator MOORE: Has the amount of that been determined? 

Ms McIntyre: It is $50,000. 

Senator MOORE: So it is $50,000 to look at issues around disability. 

Ms McIntyre: That is correct. 

Senator MOORE: I do not want to presume, but is that going to operate in a similar way to the way you were 

re-spreading the multicultural funding across the alliances? Is it going to be totally different? 

Ms McIntyre: It will be for specific projects. Our intention is actually to work with the alliances so they 

collaborate together on projects that— 

Senator MOORE: Which alliance does the women with disabilities belong to now? 

Ms McIntyre: They do belong to one, and I do not know the answer to that off the top of my head. 

Senator MOORE: That can go on notice; I am very conscious of time. 

Ms McIntyre: I have just been informed that it is ERA; the Equality Rights Alliance. 

Senator MOORE: That makes sense; so they are already a very active member of that particular group. You 

would be taking advice from across the board, but you are wanting to stimulate activities that look particularly at 

disabilities across all the alliances. But we are still talking about the one big bucket of money and that is where it 

all comes from. 

I have another couple of questions. Maybe Senator Leyonhjelm would like to ask his and then maybe I could 

have some more time. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: I understand the Office for Women collects data on women in various 

occupations. Is that right? 

Ms McIntyre: No; that would be either the Bureau of Statistics or the Department of Employment, depending 

on which data set. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: The data on the number of women on boards or in senior management and so 

forth, where does that come from? 

Ms McIntyre: Are you talking about the number of women on government boards? We do collect that data 

across government. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: You do not do it for the private sector? 

Ms McIntyre: We do not do it for the private sector, no. The Australian Institute of Company Directors 

collects some information. And, as you know, ASX-listed companies are required to report and the ASX produces 

a report as well. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: Okay. What is the source of the data on pay by gender? 

Ms McIntyre: The Workplace Gender Equality Agency undertakes a survey annually of pay data. They sit 

within the employment portfolio. 

Senator Cash: And if you have questions, you could ask them on Thursday—they actually do appear. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: Okay. I needed to clarify that because I see a reasonable amount of data coming 

out about, I suppose, the status of women—occupations, pay and so forth. I am wondering if you or any of the 

other agencies that collect those data collect anything on female genital mutilation? 

Ms McIntyre: No. My understanding is that our data sets are very poor, because data is collected in a number 

of different locations. So it may be health data that is collected or data where it is actually reported to law 

enforcement. There is not a single data collection point. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: So if you have sources from law enforcement and health, that might perhaps be 

the only source of data on female genital mutilation—would it be? 

Ms McIntyre: Potentially, yes. Social services might have some as well. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: Yes. So you have not sought to collect it? 

Ms McIntyre: There is an interdepartmental committee on female genital mutilation. One of the issues we 

have been discussing is how we improve data collections so we have a better understanding of the issue. 



Senator LEYONHJELM: Does this reflect that it is a lower priority—some of the data that I hear about and 

some which you are responsible for? 

Ms McIntyre: I would not say that it is a lower priority. I think that part of the issue with all of these data sets 

is that they sit with states and territories and not with the Commonwealth. 

Senator Cash: Absolutely not—across government, regardless of who is in office, it is an issue that is of 

concern. Hence the framework in relation to female genital mutilation and hence the criminalisation of female 

genital mutilation—in particular, if you are going to take a child overseas to subject them to female genital 

mutilation. Certainly, there is a very concerted effort by government to raise awareness but also to ensure that the 

appropriate penalties are in place. 

In terms of the data collection, though: it is recognised that there is not appropriate data on it. It might be better 

to take the questions either to health or to AGs, because they would have a better grasp of the type of data that 

they can collect. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: I take your point. There was a media report out today, as a matter of fact—I only 

came across it today—which suggests that only around 10 per cent of Australian paediatricians have ever seen a 

child with female genital mutilation. Few knew the procedure was done outside Africa and few even asked about 

it or examined girls for it, or understood the WHO classification types. They did not know the local policy on how 

to manage girls presenting with FGM and had no relevant training. Some had been asked to perform FGM, or 

asked about who could do it. 

There does seem to be some data available, but I just wonder whether anybody is actually focusing on it. The 

reason I raise it is because, as I said, I am forever hearing statistics about how women are not represented on 

boards and their pay gap is different but I very rarely hear—in fact, I never hear—data about FGM. 

Ms Hatfield-Dodds: Part of the reason for that at the national level may be that a lot of the responses to issues 

like FGM with girl children are really the responsibility of state and territory governments. Part of the challenge 

for the Commonwealth government is pulling data sets together from across eight jurisdictions. I do not think that 

any Australian government does not care and is not exercised by the issue; it is more about the challenges of 

aligning the kind of data that people are collecting and bringing it together nationally. 

Certainly with all the work that is happening around women's safety and with the plan of working groups to 

reduce violence against women and their children, FGM is absolutely in that mix. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: When I see some data, even as imperfect as it may be given the sources, I will 

believe that that is genuine. 

Senator Cash: We will speak to the other agencies and see what data we can get for you. You are absolutely 

right in your concern. I think all of us here share that same concern. As I said back in 2013, the framework for 

review of Australia's laws in relation to female genital mutilation was looked at. There is a legal framework in 

place, and it is supported across government regardless of who is in office. It is a problem and we need to address 

it. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: I agree. It is given substantially higher priority in the UK than it is here, 

incidentally. Anyway, that is a comment rather than a question. I am going to move on to domestic violence 

briefly. I confess I am not fully aware of all of the activities and programs relating to domestic violence, but can 

you confirm my impression that they are focused on domestic violence against women. 

Ms Hatfield-Dodds: Certainly the focus of the Office for Women is looking at intimate violence, domestic 

violence and family violence that is related to women. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: Where women are the victims? 

Ms Hatfield-Dodds: Yes. 

Senator Cash: I know where you are going with this, Senator Leyonhjelm. In relation to, say, for example, 

the action plan, there are certainly elements in it that are directed towards perpetrators. Unfortunately the statistics 

show that they are more often male than not. But also any service that is provided by government, while statistics 

would show that they are more often utilised by females—and that is the statistics talking—is absolutely available 

to men and anyone of any other sexual identity who is experiencing violence. For example, with 1800RESPECT, 

whilst you might often see it in terms of reducing violence against women and children, any person who is 

experiencing violence can call that number. So whilst, yes, there is a focus in the national action plan on reducing 

violence against women and children because statistically it is more likely to occur against women and children, 

in terms of the provision of services they are very much for anybody who is experiencing violence. Anybody is 



able to go to those services. That is unless you are talking about a women's shelter, because obviously that is 

specifically for women. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: There are quite good data sources which would suggest that, although more than 

half of domestic violence victims are women, there is a sizeable proportion of cases where the victim is male. 

There are also assertions which obviously cannot be proven that it is substantially underreported on the grounds 

that male victims find it hard to be taken seriously. I am wondering if there is anything in any of the domestic 

violence programs that you are familiar with that take account of any of that. 

Senator Cash: Again, we can get you more specific details from DSS in relation to the actual programs. But 

certainly as part of the national action plan we specifically fund MensLine. I will get you the final figure, but 

approximately $2 million is given to MensLine in recognition of the fact that there are men out there who need a 

specific telephone hotline dedicated to men. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: What is that $2 million for men relative to how much you spend on women when 

it comes to domestic violence? 

Senator Cash: Bear in mind again that there are services that are available within, say, the national action 

plan or the women's safety package that can be accessed by men. 1800RESPECT is funded as part of that and is 

accessible by men. We have specific perpetrator intervention plans et cetera. Those are very much for when men 

are perpetrators but they are specifically for men. We can get you a breakdown of the services and which ones can 

be accessed by men. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: And men are perpetrators against men in domestic relationships as well. 

Senator Cash: In the LGBTI community, absolutely. They very much also have issues. 

Senator LEYONHJELM: Okay. 

Senator MOORE: I have a number of questions around the working women's centres in terms of the role of 

the Office for Women. I know that there have been discussions going on there. I put on notice that I really want to 

know what intervention and what support is being provided to the Queensland working women's centre. As you 

know, the other two have got funding and will be happily operating into the future, but I think Queensland is 

closing. I think from the Office for Women's perspective and industrial relations that is an absolute tragedy. I have 

some questions around that. 

I also want to quickly put on record questions about the tender process that happened for 1800RESPECT. I 

want to know what engagement or knowledge the Office for Women or the minister had about the four days that 

were given to 1800RESPECT to tender for the work they had been doing. 

Senator Cash: We will take that on notice for you. 

Senator MOORE: It is quite urgent, Minister, because it has happened, so I want to know now. 

Ms McIntyre: It was an expression of interest process, which will be followed by a tender process. That 

process is being run by Medibank health services, who are the contracted service provider to DSS. The detail of 

that should be answered by DSS. 

Senator MOORE: I will go to the DSS about the actual process. This is something that is essentially public 

and a key part of women's services so what, if any, knowledge did the Office for Women have of this process and 

also the stress that is happening in that workplace? 

Ms McIntyre: In terms of funding for services in other departments, that is a matter for the other department. 

Senator MOORE: No-one has contacted the Office for Women with concerns about this process? 

Ms McIntyre: Not directly, no. 

Senator MOORE: You said 'not directly', but has that information been shared with the Office for Women in 

another way? 

Ms McIntyre: DSS have certainly kept us up-to-date in terms of the concerns that have been raised so that we 

can keep the minister up to date. 

Senator MOORE: So in terms of the plan and the process around the specialist knowledge needed to provide 

that service, has that been something that the Office for Women has been involved in? 

Ms McIntyre: We have not been involved in the expression of interest process or the tender documents. 

Obviously it is up to DSS and Medibank health services to ensure that the service provider who is contracted is 

able to deliver the service and that the tender documents ensure that that happens. We have not been involved in 

that process. 



Senator MOORE: I will put the rest on notice. 

Senator McALLISTER: Do you have a view about whether or not the process being undertaken by 

Medibank Private so far is satisfactory? 

Senator Cash: It is actually run out of DSS and Minister Porter is responsible for that. If there is something 

we could get to you—you said that the questions are urgent—I can go back to Minister Porter's office now and 

see what information we can get you. I am more than happy to do that for you. 

Senator McALLISTER: I guess it is that you are the Minister for Women. There is a rather hot public 

discussion happening about the nature of the tendering process that is being undertaken by Medibank Private. 

You have no view to offer this evening? 

Senator Cash: Other than it would be done in accordance with whatever the rules are and I would have to 

speak to Minister Porter. 

Senator MOORE: We would appreciate it if you could speak to Minister Porter and raise the urgency of that. 

Senator Cash: Yes, I will speak to him now. 

Senator MOORE: We will raise questions again with DSS, which is the auspicing department. How long do 

government tenders normally take in the Office for Women? 

Ms McIntyre: It would obviously depend on what it was for, but we will always comply with the guidelines 

set by the Department of Finance. My understanding is that the shortest period is seven working days and our 

standard period is 28 working days. 

Senator MOORE: And you are saying that your information is that it is not a formal tender; it is an 

expression of interest. 

Ms McIntyre: So this is an expression of interest— 

Senator MOORE: Are there any rules for expressions of interest? 

Ms McIntyre: In my experience that precedes a formal request for tender process. It gives you an indication 

of how many people are going to respond and provides other information to ensure that that tender process then 

elicits the most appropriate information but also does not require people to provide information that the 

department would not need. 

Senator MOORE: And it is not part of the formal tender process? 

Ms McIntyre: You can respond to the expression of interest and not respond to the formal tender process. 

Senator MOORE: We will follow up on the guidelines because those guidelines are actually PM&C kind of 

guidelines or Treasury— 

Ms McIntyre: Department of Finance is normally— 

Senator MOORE: So it would be seven days or 28 days, but a four-day expression of interest process would 

not be part of a formal tender? 

Ms McIntyre: If government were tendering in this situation, but it was Medibank health services who were 

putting the expression of interest out. 

Senator MOORE: But it is a government contract. 

Ms McIntyre: That is a subcontract. 

Senator MOORE: Thank you. 

CHAIR: It now being 6.30 pm, I dismiss the Office for Women and the minister. Thank you. 


CHAIR: I welcome back Senator Brandis, Ms Kelly and officers from Prime Minister and Cabinet and we 

will continue from where we left off earlier tonight. 

Senator WONG: Just very briefly— 

CHAIR: Yes, Ms Kelly. 

Ms E Kelly: I apologise, it is the second time that I have corrected it, but over the dinner break we did further 

work in relation to the way in which wait staff are engaged for the Lodge and Kirribilli. We believe that it is 

under a determination for each staff member under the MOP(S) Act but we link it in ways to our enterprise 

agreement. They are not strictly employed under an award or an enterprise agreement; they are employed under a 

determination. I will get you a full written response, setting out the detail of that, Senator Kitching. 



Senator KITCHING: Also the questions I asked on notice in relation to what they are going to lose under the 

recent Fair Work penalty rates decision. 


Senator WONG: Ms Kelly, when Mr Turnbull assumed the prime ministership, he made a number of 

statements, but the relevant one for the purposes of my questions is that he stated as follows: 

When I became a minister, all of my investments were approved under the ministerial code of conduct by the secretary of 

Prime Minister and cabinet. 

Can I ask you first: does the secretary maintain the role of approving changes to Mr Turnbull's investments? 

Ms E Kelly: The secretary continues to discharge the role under the Statement of Ministerial Standards, 

whereby, if he is asked for advice by the Prime Minister on any aspect of the standards, he provides that advice. 

Senator WONG: That is not quite what the Prime Minister said. Maybe we can just join the dots, as it were. 

When the Prime Minister said 'When I became a minister all of my investments were approved under the 

ministerial code of conduct', in light of what you said, with such an approval, essentially the minister, as he then 

was, was providing information to the secretary, who then indicated whether or not they were consistent with the 

ministerial code. 

Ms E Kelly: The secretary certainly provides advice, depending upon the request that is made. If that is the 

request that is made for whether they are consistent with the code then that will be the advice that is provided. 

Senator WONG: What do you understand or what can you tell us was meant by the Prime Minister's 

statement to the House of Representatives that the investments were approved? 

Ms E Kelly: I understand that that relates to advice being provided by the secretary of the Department of the 

Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

Senator WONG: On how many occasions has Mr Turnbull sought and received advice from Dr Parkinson in 

relation to his investments since he became Prime Minister? 

Ms E Kelly: Dr Parkinson has only been the secretary of our department since January of last year, and I 

understand there was one occasion when he sought and received advice. 

Senator WONG: Since that time? 


Senator WONG: Has the Prime Minister's investments, as disclosed under the code, changed on more than 

one occasion since he became Prime Minister? 

Ms E Kelly: Senator, I'm not privy to that advice, but I can take that question on notice. 

Senator WONG: It is not advice. It is a statement of fact. Have the investments which he has changed whilst 

he has been Prime Minister? 

Ms E Kelly: I am not privy to either of those matters. 

Senator WONG: It is on the public record. 

Senator Brandis: The witness says she does not know. 

Senator WONG: If we go through what is publicly disclosed of the Prime Minister's investments, it would 

seem odd that there has only been one occasion on which he sought advice from Dr Parkinson. 

Senator Brandis: The evidence was in fact that there was one occasion on which Ms Kelly was aware. 

Senator WONG: Who would know? 

Senator Brandis: Dr Parkinson. 

Senator WONG: Ms Kelly, Dr Parkinson is senior enough that he does not do a lot of paperwork. What is the 

process if the Prime Minister seeks such advice about his own investments from the secretary? 

Ms E Kelly: I am just trying to recall the occasions on which I have been involved in that, and it is the process 

whereby the Prime Minister provides information in relation to his investments to the secretary and the secretary 

then provides advice to the Prime Minister. 

Senator Brandis: I think we should say, Senator Wong, as well, just for completeness, that ministers seek 

advice under the code where they have reason to believe that such advice is necessary. So the question you put to 

the witness was: when does the Prime Minister seek advice from Dr Parkinson about his investments? That is not 

the issue. The issue is the subject on which advice is sought is compliance with the code. 



Senator WONG: Except that is not what the Prime Minister says. The Prime Minister says that all of his 

investments were: 

… approved under the ministerial code of conduct by the secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

Senator Brandis: I think that is what I am trying to say. 

Senator WONG: Can I ask some questions at some point? 

Senator Brandis: It is just that— 

Senator WONG: Being lectured by you— 

Senator Brandis: I am not lecturing you. 

Senator WONG: People are so used to it. It is a very common practice, but I just want to ask questions. 

Senator Brandis: Mr Chairman, if I may? 

CHAIR: Please conclude your statement, Senator Brandis, and then we will return to questions. 

Senator Brandis: I am just intervening because there have been statements made the witness which have then 

been misattributed or misconstrued, I am sure innocently, by Senator Wong in subsequent questions. We need to 

be very careful here with what we are talking about. This is about the code of conduct, and what the Prime 

Minister said—assuming, as I do, that Senator Wong has quoted him accurately—was about the code of conduct. 

I merely ask that the witness' careful answers be respected and that what the witness says not be expressed so as 

to give it a different flavour of meaning in subsequent questions. 

Senator WONG: Ms Kelly, you said that on the occasion or occasions that you can recall there was a letter 

written to Dr Parkinson from the Prime Minister seeking advice. Is that correct? 

Ms E Kelly: That would have been Mr Thawley. 

Senator WONG: Were you involved in that? 

Ms E Kelly: I had some involvement in that, although that matter was directly between the Prime Minister 

and Mr Thawley. 

Senator WONG: Can we just go through that. A letter was generated— 

Ms E Kelly: I did not see a letter. 

Senator WONG: So when you referred to a letter, what were you referring to? 

Ms E Kelly: I did not mean to refer to a letter; I did not see a letter on that occasion. 

Senator Brandis: Are you referring to a question on notice, Senator Wong? 

Senator WONG: Can I please ask some questions? 

Senator Brandis: Seriously, the witness did not refer to a letter, as she said. 

Senator WONG: I will come back. I thought she said 'letter'. 

Senator Brandis: Are you referring to a question on notice? 

Senator WONG: No. I thought she said 'letter' earlier; I am happy to rephrase if she did not. Let us start 

again. Ms Kelly, you said that Dr Parkinson, to your knowledge, has provided advice in relation to the Prime 

Minister's investments on one occasion. Was that not your evidence? 

Ms E Kelly: That is my understanding—I was not involved in that process. 

Senator WONG: That is your evidence? 


Senator WONG: Okay. Your evidence is that you were not involved in that process? 


Senator WONG: I do not understand how that can be, as the relevant deputy secretary. You would rarely get 

a piece of paper going to the secretary of the department and reply going back without some involvement from 

someone else in the department. So I am asking: if you were not involved, who was, other than Dr Parkinson? 

Ms E Kelly: In relation to these matters, which are obviously very sensitive personal details, it is quite usual 

for the communication to be directly between the secretary of the department and the Prime Minister. That was 

the case in relation to Mr Thawley and the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister initially became the Prime 

Minister in September 2015 and was the case more recently with Dr Parkinson. 

Senator Brandis: You are also assuming, Senator Wong, that a document was created. I do not know, but it 

may be that in a particular case oral advice was sought and given. 



Senator WONG: Ms Kelly, if you are not able to assist me, can I be quite clear about what I want. Firstly: on 

how many occasions since Mr Turnbull became Prime Minister has he sought and obtained approval under the 

ministerial code from the secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet, as is described in his statement to the House on 

14 October 2015? 

Ms E Kelly: I can certainly take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Secondly, I would like to know: is it the Prime Minister's practice, each time his 

investments change, to confirm with the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet that those 

investments are still or remain consistent with the ministerial code? 


Senator WONG: Thirdly: if not, why not? 

Ms E Kelly: Yes, I can take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Also, given that there seems to be some confusion or lack of clarity about how this practice 

occurs, I also want to know how it happens. I want to understand the process by which such approval, to use the 

Prime Minister's words, is sought and provided. 

Ms E Kelly: Yes, I can take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Who looks after Mr Turnbull's declarations of gifts from foreign leaders following his 

return from overseas travel? 

Ms E Kelly: That would be Ms Ganly. 

Senator WONG: I just want to know: is the declaration of above-threshold gifts up to date? 

Ms Ganly: I do not have the latest lot of declarations. They normally are. When people return from overseas, 

the information is given to CERHOS. But I can take that on notice and confirm. 

Senator WONG: Thank you very much. I have other questions, but I think Senator Kitching also has 

questions. 

Senator KITCHING: Firstly, I just want to go back to two items. In relation to the birthday party function, if 

I may paraphrase and use that shorthand— 

Senator Brandis: You may not, because that is tendentious. The evidence was that it was not a birthday party. 

Please, Senator Kitching, do not deliberately misstate the evidence. 

Senator WONG: Relax! 

Senator KITCHING: Perhaps I should use the— 

Senator WONG: For goodness sake, you called the Prime Minister a criminal in the Senate, so you are in no 

position to lecture anybody. 

Senator Brandis: Senator Kitching, you heard the evidence. The evidence was that it was not a birthday 

party, it was a function. 

Senator WONG: She can phrase the questions how she wants. Just leave her alone. 

Senator KITCHING: Regarding the soiree where three birthdays were celebrated at the Lodge on 16 July, 

did any coalition MPs not attend that function? 

Senator Brandis: I was at the function which you misdescribe and which was, as the evidence— 

Senator KITCHING: I cannot have misdescribed it too much, because you know what I am talking about. 

Senator Brandis: I take it you are referring to the evidence to the function, of which the evidence earlier was 

that it was a reception or a function for all coalition members and senators, and which I attended on the date you 

identified. 

Senator WONG: Except for Mr Abbott. 

Senator Brandis: I could not tell you exactly who was there or who was not. But my recollection is that most 

of my colleagues were there. I would not be surprised if a few were not, but it was— 

Senator KITCHING: Was Mr Abbott present? 

Senator Brandis: I do not remember. 

Senator KITCHING: He is a former prime minister. 

Senator Brandis: He would have been invited, but whether he was there or not I do not remember. 



Senator KITCHING: I just want to return to the disgraced former minister, Susan Ley, and her abuse of 

parliamentary entitlements. Just so we are clear and so Ms Kelly is also clear, what I am after is why Dr 

Parkinson's findings were released in relation to Mr Robert but there was not a consistent application in the 

releasing of Dr Parkinson's reports, in that the one relating to Susan Ley was not released and, in fact— 

Senator Brandis: You are comparing two different things, Senator. 

Senator KITCHING: Let me just finish. 

Senator Brandis: No, Senator Kitching, I am not— 

Senator KITCHING: If I could— 

CHAIR: Order! Senator Kitching! 

Senator KITCHING: If I could— 

Senator Brandis: Senator Wong— 

CHAIR: Order! 

Senator WONG: She has not finished the question. 

Senator KITCHING: finish the question so that you can understand where I am going. 

Senator WONG: Chair, you cannot just interrupt her halfway through a question. 

CHAIR: I am just trying to restore some order, Senator Wong. 

Senator KITCHING: The Prime Minister said about Mr Robert that he had acted inconsistently with the 

Statement of Ministerial Standards. What he said about Susan Ley was: 

I want to thank her for her service to the Government as a Minister and as a member of the Executive over many years. 

But he did admit that Ms Ley did the wrong thing. Does the Prime Minister now admit that Ms Ley did the wrong 

thing by rorting her entitlements? 

Senator Brandis: I will take that question. I assume it was, in fact, addressed to me. Let me go back to the 

earlier part of your question. You asserted that there was an inconsistency, but in your own question you said that 

in relation to Mr Robert there was a finding, which was released, and in relation to Ms Ley there was a report, 

which was not released. Those are not the same thing. In fact, the conclusion that had been arrived at by the 

secretary of PM&C was that what we may call a finding or a conclusion was in both cases released. In neither 

case was a report released. So your attempt, perhaps deliberate or perhaps mischievous, to equate a finding and a 

report is wrong. There was complete consistency with previous practice. That is the first point. 

The second point, Senator Kitching, is that the Prime Minister made observations about Ms Ley's conduct and 

the circumstances in which a conclusion was arrived at that she should leave the ministry, and his words speak for 

themselves. 

Senator WONG: Can I just follow something up? 

CHAIR: You may. 

Senator WONG: I am interested in the answer that the minister representing just gave. He is correct in 

asserting that a conclusion was released in the sense that it was— 

Senator Brandis: Disclosed. 

Senator WONG: communicated—disclosed—in relation to Mr Robert. Quote: 


I would be interest to know: where in the public statement of Ms Ley's resignation is the equivalent conclusion 

disclosed? 

Senator Brandis: I was relying upon the accuracy of what Senator Kitching said when she said there was a 

finding. 

Senator WONG: No, there is no disclosure that we can find. I think that is the point. 

Senator KITCHING: There is no disclosure. I said that. I think you are confused, Senator Brandis, which is 

why I have actually read you— 

Senator Brandis: Senator Kitching, you were the one who equated a finding with a report, and they are quite 

different things. 

Senator WONG: I am not asking about a report. 

Senator McKENZIE: Two quotes and a press release. 



Senator BRANDIS: But that is not the point, Senator Wong. 

Senator WONG: I am asking a question now, and I am not asking— 

Senator Brandis: Well, what is the question? 

Senator WONG: I have explained it to you. 

Senator Brandis: Just tell me what your question is. 

Senator WONG: I am happy to do it again. In the media release associated with the resignation of Mr Robert, 

the conclusion that Dr Parkinson reached is disclosed. 


Senator WONG: Quote: 


There is no such disclosure of Dr Parkinson's conclusion as to the consistency or inconsistency with the statement 

of standards of Ms Ley's actions, so they are treated differently, and I am asking why. 

Senator Brandis: Well that is not the question that Senator Kitching asked me. 

Senator WONG: No. This is the question I am asking. 

Senator Brandis: In answer to the question that you have put to me, Senator Wong, I do not have to hand the 

statement that the Prime Minister made, so I am not in a position to respond to you. 

Senator WONG: I think we can provide that, so why don't we come back to that. We will give you copies of 

your own press releases and maybe you could get some advice. 

Senator Brandis: I did not issue a press release. 

Senator WONG: You are here representing the Prime Minister, so it is your own. Senator Kitching, do you 

want to move on to the next thing while we are doing this? 

Senator KITCHING: Yes. I would like to discuss a PM&C contract with Turnbull & Partners. There is a 

contract notice that was published on AusTender on 9 September 2010. It was a contract with one of the Prime 

Minister's companies, Turnbull & Partners. When it was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister's office, 

the department claimed that naming Turnbull & Partners on the contract notice was a clerical error and that the 

contract was actually let to Lucy Turnbull personally. How did the department come to enter into this contract 

with Mrs Turnbull? 

Senator Brandis: When was that? 

Senator KITCHING: September 2010. As I have read out to you—just so we are clear, because you 

misheard my question before—it was 9 September 2010. 

Senator Brandis: But I am asking you when the department provided the advice. When was that? 

Senator KITCHING: The department provided the advice in 2010-2011. 

Senator BRANDIS: If it was in 2010, Mr Chairman, what may have happened in 2010, when in fact a 

different political party was in government, has no bearing whatsoever on the 2016-17 budget estimates or on the 

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

Senator KITCHING: It does have relation because, as you would be aware, Senator Brandis, and as you 

mentioned earlier today, you had a discussion about constitutional matters, and this would be a constitutional 

matter because the Prime Minister himself may not be eligible— 

Senator Brandis: I am sorry; the only two events to which you have referred occurred in 2010, and the point I 

am making is that events that occurred in 2010 have absolutely no relevance to the 2016-17 budget estimates. 

Senator KITCHING: Chair, could I just ask: if earlier today— 

Senator Brandis: Mr Turnbull was not even a minister in 2010. 

Senator KITCHING: Excuse me, Senator Brandis. If earlier today we had people asking for functions that 

occurred at Kirribilli and the Lodge in the time of then Prime Minister Hawke— 

Senator McKENZIE: Fundraisers. Not functions, fundraisers. Labor Party fundraisers. Let's get it right. 

Senator KITCHING: and then Prime Minister Howard, that is obviously much longer ago— 

CHAIR: Well, the department— 

Senator Brandis: Nobody objected to it. 

CHAIR: Order, order! 



Senator KITCHING: and therefore we have got a precedent in place that this committee today has already— 

CHAIR: Order! Thank you, Senator Kitching. The department took those questions on notice, and I will be 

interested to see what they say in response to them in due course. Feel free to ask your questions, but they may 

need to also take these on notice, and they may not be able to answer them. 

Senator KITCHING: I am absolutely happy for them to take them on notice. I would like to ask Ms Kelly or 

Ms Tressler: how did the department come to enter into this contract with Mrs Turnbull? 

Ms Tressler: I cannot directly answer 'how' the department came to enter into the contract, but I can confirm 

that the department did, on behalf of the Council of Australian Governments, enter into a contract with Mrs 

Lucinda Turnbull in 2010, and that was for her appointment as a deputy chair of an expert advisory panel. 

Senator KITCHING: Can you explain the background to the contract and precisely what services were 

provided under the contract. 

Ms Tressler: It was in the capacity of a deputy chair of the expert advisory panel. I can confirm that she did 

conduct the services in accordance with the contract. 

Senator KITCHING: Who drafted the contract? 

Ms Tressler: It was some time ago, so I would need to take that on notice. 

Senator KITCHING: Was the contract sent directly to Mrs Turnbull, or to her legal representative? 

Ms Tressler: It was sent directly to Mrs Turnbull. 

Senator KITCHING: Who were named as the parties to that contract on the document itself? 

Ms Tressler: The parties are named as, first of all, herself, and I am just finding who was the representative of 

the Commonwealth. It just says the 'Commonwealth of Australia, as represented by The Department of Prime 

Minister and Cabinet', and it was a first assistant secretary at the time, Ms Mary Ann O'Loughlin, who was the 

departmental representative. 

Senator KITCHING: When did Ms O'Loughlin sign the contract? 

Ms Tressler: The contract was signed on 24 August 2010. 

Senator KITCHING: Did Mrs Turnbull sign the contract, and when? 

Ms Tressler: Mrs Turnbull signed the contract on 17 August 2010. 

Senator KITCHING: Did she sign it in her personal capacity, or as a director of Turnbull & Partners Pty 

Ltd? 

Ms Tressler: It was in her personal capacity. 

Senator KITCHING: Where was the payment to Mrs Turnbull directed? 

Ms Tressler: In terms of 'where' we would need to confirm exactly, but I do know that it was paid into her 

name, according to our records. 

Senator KITCHING: What I am really asking is was it a bank account—what was the name of the bank 

account? 

Ms Tressler: I would need to confirm 100 per cent in terms of taking that on notice, but I do believe that it 

was in her personal name. 

Senator WONG: With respect, this has been in the media. You have had to amend the contract notice as a 

result of a media inquiry. Surely you have come prepared with these sorts of details? 

Ms Tressler: I am sorry, I did not come prepared with the bank details, but I can confirm payment details and 

I do know the contract is in her name. 

Senator KITCHING: Do you have a copy of the contract there? 

Ms Tressler: Yes, and it has been provided under a question on notice as well. 

Senator KITCHING: Which area of the department received to the contract? 

Ms Tressler: I would need to confirm the particular area, because this was some time ago under old 

structures, so I would need to take that on notice. 

Senator KITCHING: Are you able to produce a copy of the contract now? 

Ms Tressler: Yes. 

Senator KITCHING: On the company records, Turnbull & Partners have a postal address as PO Box 906 

Potts Point, as do the supply details on the AusTender site—Lucinda Hughes Turnbull, PO Box 906, Potts Point. 



Are you aware that the postal address was the same address for both Turnbull & Partners and for Mrs Turnbull in 

a personal capacity? 

Ms Tressler: The copy of the contract that I have has that bit redacted, but I do believe that is the case. 

Senator WONG: How did you become aware of that—of the fact that the company which involves Mr 

Turnbull shares the same mailing address as his wife's personal mail? 

Ms Tressler: When we received a query about the contract, we were looking up the details around ABN and 

other things. 

Senator WONG: So it was in response to the media. 


Senator KITCHING: What party name was entered into the AusTender database? Was it Lucy Turnbull or 

Turnbull & Partners? 

Ms Tressler: It was incorrectly entered as Turnbull & Partners Pty Ltd onto AusTender; however, the ABN 

that was listed was the correct ABN for Ms Turnbull. 

Senator KITCHING: How did you have the correct ABN and the incorrect company name? 

Ms Tressler: Unfortunately that was just an administrative error that was not identified. 

Senator KITCHING: Did someone in the department know that there was a company called Turnbull & 

Partners? For example, it could have been Turnbull and Co or Turnbull— 

Ms E Kelly: It was seven years ago, and the person who signed the contract is no longer with the department. 

Ms Tressler will do the best she can, but I think we are getting into the realm of speculation. 

Senator KITCHING: Ms Kelly, I am not asking for anyone's— 

Senator WONG: But you had a media inquiry in November 2016 about this— 

Ms E Kelly: Mr Tressler has come armed with an enormous amount of information about this contract. 

Senator WONG: I am just asking a question, Ms Kelly. 

Senator KITCHING: Just so that I can explain where I am going for Ms Kelly, it would seem to me that if 

the contract person was always Lucy Turnbull—Lucinda Hughes Turnbull—it would be very difficult for 

someone to come up with Turnbull & Partners as a name of a supplier. It could be Turnbull and Co or Turnbull 

Acme Pty Ltd, or whatever. How has someone made a clerical error? How would they even know that Turnbull & 

Partners was actually an entity? 

Senator Brandis: Senator Kitching, your theories are very interesting, but the fact is, as Ms Kelly has told 

you, that this officer was not in the department or responsible for this matter in the department at the relevant time 

in 2010. The person who was handling the matter in 2010 is no longer with the department. With respect, it is 

both unfair and irrelevant, frankly, to ask a witness who has no personal knowledge of these matters to speculate 

about who in the department, seven years ago, might have had that knowledge. 

Senator WONG: Let's just put it this way: Ms Tressler, do you know? 

Ms Tressler: No. 

Senator Brandis: That was your best question all day, Senator Wong. 

Senator WONG: Everyone is fighting about it. If she knows, she knows; if she doesn't, she doesn't. 

Senator Brandis: That is my very point. 

Senator KITCHING: Did the department make the payment in response to an invoice from Mrs Turnbull? 

Ms Tressler: The department did pay a number of invoices against that contract. 

Senator KITCHING: Which was the legal entity that issued the invoice? 

Ms Tressler: It was in Ms Turnbull's name. 

Senator KITCHING: Mrs Turnbull's personal name? 


Senator WONG: Ms Tressler, you gave some evidence a few minutes ago saying that you had released the 

contract in response to a question on notice. 


Senator WONG: In fact, you refused to release it to me. That is question on notice 272. Has it been released 

to someone else, just because you guys do not like me, under a different qon, or has been an error? 



Ms Tressler: I was under the impression that that had been released. I would need to follow that up. I 

apologise. 

Senator WONG: Can we have a copy, then? 

Ms E Kelly: We might need to take that on notice to determine whether there is anything about the contract or 

any part of it that we might need to redact in order to provide it. We will take that on notice and provide that if we 

are able to. 

Senator McALLISTER: Has it been released to anybody else? 

Ms E Kelly: I think we do not know at the moment. We need to take that on notice and finally determine that. 

Senator KITCHING: How many invoices did Mrs Turnbull issue for payment? 

Ms Tressler: I do not have the number of invoices, but they were less than the total contract value. 

Senator KITCHING: Why was that? 

Ms Tressler: They were the services that were rendered, and it happened to be less than that amount. 

Senator KITCHING: Can copies of the invoices be produced? 

Ms Tressler: I imagine so. I would need to take that on notice. 

Senator KITCHING: What was the account name of the bank account? Was it Lucinda Turnbull? 

Ms Tressler: I would need— 

Senator Brandis: Senator Kitching, you are now asking for the private bank account details of a citizen? That 

is extraordinary. 

Senator WONG: We are asking for the details of a supplier under those tenders— 

Senator Brandis: I am aware of the general subject matter of your questions, but are you seriously asking for 

the private bank account details of a private citizen? 

Senator WONG: I think she asked for the account name. 

Senator KITCHING: I was asking for the account name. I said, and I will just repeat it slowly to help you— 

Senator Brandis: I thought you said 'the account details'. 

Senator KITCHING: What was the account name of the bank account the department paid this money to? 

Senator Brandis: That is fine. 

Senator KITCHING: Thank you. Can a copy of all EFT receipts detailing the account name to which 

payments were made be provided? 

Ms Tressler: I would need to take that on notice. 

Senator KITCHING: How did the amendment to the name of the party on this contract notice come about? 

Ms Tressler: The department received a media inquiry, and that is when we discovered the error. The error 

was identified on 4 November 2016, and it was corrected on 8 November. 

Senator KITCHING: Who first contacted the department about this issue? 

Ms Tressler: James Robertson from The Sydney Morning Herald. 

Senator KITCHING: What was the process then? What did you do then? 

Ms Tressler: I immediately asked for a copy of the contract itself, did a search of the department's financial 

management information system, and then for details on AusTender so that we could compare all of the relevant 

information. 

Senator KITCHING: Was any contact made back to PMO? 

Ms Tressler: Contact was made back to the PMO to advise them of the error that we had made. 

Senator KITCHING: Who did you contact in PMO? 

Ms Tressler: I would need to take that on notice. It was one of the advisers. 

Senator KITCHING: Did you let the departmental secretary know? 


Senator KITCHING: The contact between the adviser and the department—was it just a one-off, or was 

there a series of discussions? 

Ms Tressler: We may have spoken two or three times, probably—first of all when the query came in, to 

confirm that we would have a look into it, and then once we had the advice. 



Senator KITCHING: Who decided that the contract should have been let in Lucy Turnbull's name? 

Ms Tressler: That was my decision. 

Senator KITCHING: Did you have any input from senior departmental— 

Ms Tressler: No. It was purely based on the information before me, where it was clear that the contract was in 

her name. 

Senator KITCHING: Did you base that on the ABN? 

Ms Tressler: I based it on the ABN and the contract itself, and I also contacted the previous first assistant 

secretary, who is now working for the New South Wales government, I believe, to confirm that that was the case, 

which she did. 

Senator KITCHING: What was the content of your discussions with PMO? Did you telephone PMO to tell 

them, after the media inquiry? 

Ms Tressler: The query came in via their office to begin with, I believe. They made the initial contact. We 

then looked at the details and I went back with the advice about what had been determined. 

Senator KITCHING: Besides the name of the party on the contract, were there other details which were 

revised? 


Senator KITCHING: Was the original signed and dated contract revised? 


Ms E Kelly: Nothing about the contract was revised—it was the AusTender notification that was incorrect. It 

was corrected. 

Senator WONG: Senator Brandis, I have provided you with the press release and the Prime Minister's 

transcript, so I will come back to that after you have had an opportunity to look at it, if you want. Ms Kelly, what 

is the internal budget allocated for the operation of the PMO for the current financial year, please? 

Ms E Kelly: I will have to take that on notice. I do not have that information in my papers. 

Senator WONG: Really? Can you please bring it to the next estimates? 

Ms E Kelly: I will. 

Senator WONG: You cannot tell us what the budget allocation is? It is not what is in the budget papers—it is 

obviously internally allocated. You have no idea how much is allocated to the PMO? 

Ms E Kelly: I do not have that information with me. 

Senator WONG: I will ask a couple of questions. I may have to put them on notice because we were probably 

too kind and said to Mr McKinnon, 'Go home.' There are a couple of adviser roles in the international division 

that I am a little confused about. There is a position of Chief Adviser International and then there is the position of 

Principal Adviser International. Are you able to tell me what the difference is? 

Ms E Kelly: I am not, Senator Wong. Those positions are in Mr McKinnon's area. So I do not know the detail 

of that. 

Senator WONG: Can you tell me: in your org chart they are placed where you would usually see assistant 

secretaries. In terms of their classification or their seniority, are they the equivalent of an assistant secretary? Do 

they report to the FAS of the division? 

Ms E Kelly: I am not sure, Senator Wong. I will have to take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Okay. I will put them on notice. I wanted to know this, though: did the Prime Minister or 

the Prime Minister's office have any input into the establishment of the roles or the selection of candidates for 

these roles? 

Ms E Kelly: That is something that we would really have to ask Mr McKinnon, Senator Wong. 

Senator WONG: So are you taking that on notice? 


Senator WONG: Could you please provide the committee with the job notice published in the Gazette and 

full job selection criteria for each of those roles. 




Senator WONG: Thank you. There is some public reporting of a Mr Thomas Tudehope, who has been 

appointed head of digital. Is that a MOPS position or a Public Service position? 

Ms E Kelly: I am sorry, Senator Wong—reported head of which— 

Senator WONG: Head of digital. 

Ms E Kelly: I am sorry. I am not familiar with that. 

Senator WONG: I just want to know: is Mr Tudehope a MOP staffer or a public servant? You cannot help 

me? 

Ms E Kelly: I am not familiar with that position or that individual. 

Senator WONG: In relation to the question on notice to which I referred, which is 272, where I asked for a 

copy of the contract that Senator Kitching has been asking about. I was told that it is not the practise to release 

such contracts. Can you please tell me if the answer to that was changed as between what was drafted by the 

department and what was finally submitted? And, if so, by who? 

Ms E Kelly: Yes, I will take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: How many matters relating to leaks has the Secretary of the Department of the Prime 

Minister and Cabinet referred to the AFP since the last election? 

Ms E Kelly: I will have to take that on notice, Senator Wong. 

Senator WONG: Okay. Can you come next time with that? 

Ms E Kelly: I certainly know in relation— 

Senator WONG: I think we have asked about leak inquiries at every estimates now, and it is now a number of 

years. 

Ms E Kelly: I can certainly advise you that there was a matter referred by Mr Pratt in November last year, but 

that was a matter referred by Mr Pratt. So I am not aware of any matters referred by the secretary. 

Senator WONG: I should expand that then, shouldn't I? Secretary or other officer of the department. 

Ms E Kelly: Mr Pratt was secretary at the time of Social Services. So Finn was another secretary. I am not 

aware of anything that has been referred by Dr Parkinson, but I will confirm that for you, Senator Wong. 

Senator WONG: I have some questions about estimates preparation, Ms Kelly. On what date did the 

department send draft briefs to the PMO ahead of this estimates round? 

Ms E Kelly: Ms Ganly would be the person with that information. 

Ms Ganly: Sorry, Senator, I do not have the date with me right at this moment but I can get it quite quickly. I 

will check that out for you. 

Senator WONG: Do you want me to come back to you? 

Ms Ganly: Yes. I will get that information straightaway. 

Senator WONG: No worries. Ms Kelly, as a matter of fairness, I have asked that you be given the Hansard 

that I was going to refer back to. Has that happened? Sorry, I thought it had already happened. It relates to the 

luggage lift. 

Ms E Kelly: Yes, Senator Wong. 

Senator WONG: We asked a lot of questions about the luggage lift that had been installed at the Lodge. 

There were two subsequent corrections, from memory, by PM&C. 


Senator WONG: What I am more interested in asking is why you proffered that information. If you look at 

the Hansard, Senator McAllister is asking Ms Ganly whether there are any other Commonwealth buildings that 

have a specialised luggage lift of this nature. Ms Ganly says, 'I am not aware of any.' She talks about the need for 

it—heavy suitcases up and down the stairs and they are precarious stairs to be walking up and down. I say, 'No 

other Prime Minister has needed this.' You then say, 'The luggage lift was part of the earliest discussions about the 

refurbishment in 2010, when there was a different Prime Minister.' With respect, it is not an answer to any 

question that was put you—apart from being incorrect, which I will come to. Why did you choose to do that? 

Ms E Kelly: I was seeking to make the point that the luggage lift was an initiative of the department— 

Senator WONG: That is not what you said. 

Ms E Kelly: for the purposes of protecting the staff that work at the Lodge. 



Senator WONG: Nobody had asked you that. 

Senator Brandis: I think officers are entitled to provide context. 

Senator WONG: Sure, and she is very good at doing so, but I simply said, 'No other Prime Minister has 

needed this.' Ms Kelly, without being asked by any senator of this committee when this was first part of the 

discussions, not only gave incorrect information but gave information about a date that she was not asked. I am 

just interested in why. 

Ms E Kelly: I thought that you were interested in the substance of why the lift came to be part of the 

refurbishments, and that was an initiative of the department in order to— 

Senator WONG: Where in your evidence do you say it was an initiative of the department? That is a new 

thing. You have not said that before. 

Ms E Kelly: It was for the purposes of protecting the staff and also to protect the staircase. 

Senator WONG: Ms Kelly, where in this evidence did you say this was an initiative of the department? It is 

page 49. 

Ms E Kelly: I will just get my copy of the transcript. 

Senator WONG: This passage here is the only occasion on which 2010 is referenced, as I recall. 

Senator Brandis: On page 49 of the Hansard, you mean, Senator Wong? 


CHAIR: From my own hazy memory of the questions last year, I think government senators were asking 

some questions about the exact timing as well. 

Senator Brandis: Ms Kelly says, 'The luggage lift was part of the earliest discussions'— 

Senator WONG: After Ms Kelly gives the evidence— 

Senator Brandis: But Ms Kelly, in the Hansard, on page 49, says, 'The luggage lift was part of the earliest 

discussions about the refurbishment in 2010, when there was a different Prime Minister.' 

Senator WONG: She was never asked that question. She just proffers what is, frankly, a very political 

response, which was actually— 

Senator Brandis: Are you disputing the factual accuracy of what Ms Kelly said? 

Senator WONG: Yes, and she has had to correct the record because it was incorrect. We will come to that 

shortly. But I am just interested in why you proffered that. 

Ms E Kelly: I then go on to say, 'I can get you the detail of that, but my understanding is that it was originally 

in terms of the heritage value of the front staircase and the danger to staff in using the staircase to carry heavy 

items up the stairs.' 

Senator WONG: Why did you proffer 2010, 'when there was a different Prime Minister', when you were not 

asked that? 

Ms E Kelly: I thought that was what you were interested in finding out—why the lift was included in the 

refurbishment plans. 

Senator WONG: No 'other Prime Minister' is needed. 

Senator Brandis: I remember that too, Senator Wong, and I think the point that Labor senators were making 

is that this was something that had been demanded by a coalition Prime Minister, when in fact that was not the 

truth. 

Senator WONG: I am asking Ms Kelly questions. 

Senator Brandis: Well, I am responding, Senator, because, as you know— 

Senator WONG: She is very highly paid. I am sure she can answer. 

Senator Brandis: I can take any question that I choose, and I think you are being very unfair to Ms Kelly, 

who is a very experienced and respected officer, and we all know very well what was being said. It was being said 

that this luggage lift was being demanded to be installed by a coalition Prime Minister, when in fact that was not 

the truth. What was the truth was that the luggage lift had been an initiative decided upon in 2010. 

Senator WONG: You have subsequently had to correct that evidence twice. 




Senator WONG: Why did you offer that to the committee when you were not asked it, if you did not have a 

firm basis for the assertion? 

Ms E Kelly: I was relying on my recollection. At the conclusion of the last estimates, I returned to the 

department and asked for searches to be made of our records, to ensure that my evidence was consistent with 

those records. 

Senator WONG: Senator Brandis, you said it was decided in 2010. In fact, that is not the evidence. The 

department has had to correct that record. In fact, it was corrected twice. 

Senator Brandis: Senator Wong, you asked Ms Kelly why she said that at the time— 

Senator WONG: Yes. You referenced the fact that it was decided in 2010. I just want to make clear to you 

that the evidence has been corrected twice. 

CHAIR: Sorry—what year was it? 

Senator WONG: It was 23 February 2012, I think—the earliest reference. 

Senator Brandis: So the difference is not a material one. It was decided upon during the period of the 

previous government. 

Senator WONG: No, I think the evidence— 

Senator Brandis: Not necessarily you, Senator Wong, if I may finish, but certainly some of your political 

colleagues made the very cheap point that this was something that had been demanded either by Mr Abbott or 

perhaps by Mr Turnbull when that was not the truth. 

Senator WONG: But that is not up to her to deal with; that is up to you. 

Senator Brandis: I think it is up to a witness to provide— 

Senator WONG: It is not up to the deputy secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to 

play a political game. 

Senator Brandis: contextual truth to their answers to this question. 

Senator WONG: Ms Kelly, I again ask you this: what was the basis of your claim that this was discussed in 

2010, which you proffered to the committee? 

Ms E Kelly: As I said, Senator Wong, that was my recollection. As soon as estimates were over, I returned to 

the department and asked for the records to be checked. On checking the records, we determined that there was. 

The first written record that we could find was of a meeting in October 2013 and I informed the committee of that 

a month later. Subsequent to that, there was media reporting of that correction and I was contacted by the officer 

who had conduct of the matter at the time, who was not working in the department at that point, who said, 

'Actually, 2013 is not the first time that that was raised by the department. It was raised much earlier,' and that led 

us to find the record of 23 February 2012. 

Senator WONG: At a departmental level. Can I just come back to this point. You are a very experienced 

officer. You take things on notice all the time, yet you proffered evidence about 2010 on the basis of recollection 

without qualifying that evidence at all. Can you explain to me why? 

Ms E Kelly: I apologise for that, Senator Wong, and I have corrected that evidence to the committee. 

Senator WONG: I am interested as to the difference. On a number of occasions, in response to opposition 

questions today, you have, as is your right, said, 'I'm taking that on notice. I can't recall. I need to check that.' You 

made no such qualification in relation to this and yet you were prepared to proffer that evidence on the basis of 

recollection. I just wonder why in relation to this you were prepared to do that, but not in relation to other matters. 

Senator Brandis: Senator Wong, I think you are being very oppressive and overbearing on this witness— 

Senator WONG: Oppressive? 

Senator Brandis: who is an extremely experienced and highly respected officer of the Public Service. She has 

admitted she made a mistake. The mistake was corrected and, when the inquiries resulting from the correction of 

the mistake finally located the relevant date which you were seeking, it was discovered that the relevant decision 

was made in February 2012. That is the ultimate— 

Senator WONG: No, that is not the decision. That is an incorrect assertion of the evidence. It was discussed 

at an official level. 

Senator BRANDIS: It was first raised. 




Senator Brandis: The decision to— 

Senator WONG: You like precision. Do not misdescribe the evidence. That is not what the evidence is. 

Senator Brandis: Well, let's say the decision to raise the matter was first made in February 2012. That is the 

ultimate and accurate answer to the information which you have been seeking. And I do not think the witness can 

be criticised for having made a mistake which she promptly and conscientiously corrected and which led to the 

ultimate correct date being provided to the committee: February 2012. 

Senator WONG: We just do not understand why it is on that occasion, when she was not asked, she proffered 

something on the basis of a recollection, which is a very different approach to the way in which evidence is given 

in relation to other matters. 

Senator Brandis: Are you reflecting upon Ms Kelly, Senator Wong? 

Senator WONG: I think her conduct speaks for itself. 

Senator Brandis: I think Ms Kelly's eagerness to help this committee and the promptness and 

conscientiousness with which she corrected an error does speak itself. 

Senator WONG: I am sure that a government would think that. I move now to PM&C staff in the PMO, 

please. Could you tell me how many PM&C staff are currently seconded to the PMO? 

Ms E Kelly: Are you meaning employees up there on a transitional basis, other than DLOs, Senator Wong? 

Senator WONG: Perhaps we should do it by category, then. As I recollect, apart from DLOs, you have staff 

on secondment and on leave of absence. Sorry, generally those two go together. How many are in that category? 

Ms E Kelly: Senator Wong, I do not have that information to hand. I am not aware of any staff on secondment 

on a transitional basis. They would be staff that the department was providing to the Prime Minister on a shortterm 

basis. 

Senator WONG: Again, who is in the Prime Minister's office is not an unusual thing to be asked at estimates. 

Can no-one tell me if there are PM&C staff seconded into the PMO at the moment? 

Ms E Kelly: I cannot tell you that. I would have to take that on notice. 

Senator WONG: Can anyone tell me? You have to take that on notice. You cannot tell me about the budget 

and you cannot tell me how many PM&C staff. 

Ms E Kelly: No, I cannot. 

Senator WONG: Is there anything in the folders? 

Ms E Kelly: I do not think there is anyone here who can give you that information. We will have to put that 

information together, Senator Wong. 

Senator WONG: Could you come with some of this information to the next estimates, please? 

Ms E Kelly: We will endeavour to do so. 

Senator WONG: Thank you. If you could do that and then also provide a breakdown by level. I do not need 

names but please identify the number PM&C staff who are on secondment and on leave of absence by APS 

classification. 

I am not sure that I have followed this up, but I would like to do so now: you may or may not recall, Ms Kelly, 

when the CRC was abolished there was a discussion at the time under Prime Minister Abbott that the Productivity 

Commission would be engaged to monitor performance in relation to COAG and other initiatives that the CRC 

usually did. Where has that got to? 

Ms E Kelly: That would be Ms Hatfield Dodds' area. 

Senator WONG: She does not look as if she is jumping to answer that. 

Ms E Kelly: It was before Ms Hatfield Dodds' time and so perhaps you could repeat the question 

Senator WONG: Previously there was the COAG Reform Council, which was established to monitor 

performance against various COAG measures, policies and implementation plans agreed by COAG. The Abbott 

government abolished it. There was discussion, and I recall having discussion with Ms Cross, about the 

Productivity Commission taking over some sort of ongoing performance monitoring role. Has that ever 

progressed? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: I do not believe it happens but I will have to take that on notice. I apologise. 

Senator WONG: That would be useful. Who can talk to me about the Infrastructure Financing Unit in the 

Prime Minister's department? 



Ms E Kelly: Dr Kennedy. 

Dr Kennedy: Would you like me to outline where things are up to, Senator? 

Senator WONG: Whose idea was this? 

Dr Kennedy: The Infrastructure Financing Unit was announced in the Smart Cities Plan. I will get my 

colleague Mary Wiley-Smith to come up and help me. I apologise that officials who normally look after this are 

not here now. It was announced some time ago and it was more recently announced that the unit would be 

established within the PM&C portfolio. We have completed our consultations around advising the government on 

the design and the exact operation of the unit. The government is in the process of making its final decisions 

around how the Infrastructure Financing Unit will operate, and I expect that would happen soon. 

Senator WONG: Will it at act like a mini investment bank at the heart of the bureaucracy, as it was reported 

to the Financial Review? 

Dr Kennedy: What the Infrastructure Financing Unit will do is bring a capability that already exists, I would 

say, in the Public Service in the finance department, the Treasury department and also in the Department of 

Infrastructure and Regional Development, but it will bring those types of capabilities together, probably coupled 

together with some private sector capability that will explore how infrastructure projects may engage with private 

proponents or have private funds or whether there are sources of revenue to alleviate the call on taxpayer funds to 

fund infrastructure. There are similar types of units that operate in the state jurisdictions. For example, New South 

Wales has one, so it is Victoria and in other jurisdictions like Canada and the UK. 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: Senator Wong, I have found the information you were after on the COAG performance 

reports for this year. 

Senator WONG: Sorry, can I just finish this. I find it hard to have dual topics. The AFR also reported that the 

government is looking to hire a leader for the unit. 

Dr Kennedy: The unit will have a person who heads it up. 

Senator WONG: Has a decision been made on overall remuneration for that position? 

Dr Kennedy: No. 

Senator WONG: Is it intended that it be above the normal APS classifications? 

Dr Kennedy: No decision has been made. It will in part depend on the precise structure of the unit and how it 

sits within the Public Service. 

Senator WONG: Is the government contemplating non-Public-Service? 

Dr Kennedy: No, I mean whether it is a division within the department or operates as a— 

Senator WONG: Okay, so those decisions have not been made. 

Dr Kennedy: Those decisions are being made at the moment, but they have not been finalised. 

Senator WONG: They are being made at the moment? 

Dr Kennedy: That is right. 

Senator WONG: By whom? 

Dr Kennedy: By the government. 

Senator WONG: By the government? 

Dr Kennedy: The government is going through its usual cabinet decision-making processes to finalise the 

precise structure of the unit. When it has finished all of those—and they have not all been finished—I presume it 

will announce that and we will move to the next stage. 

Senator WONG: Have you sought and been allocated additional funding for this unit? 

Dr Kennedy: The funding for the unit is part of that decision-making. 

Senator WONG: How much is the funding that has been agreed? 

Dr Kennedy: No funding has been agreed, because the precise structure of the unit has not been settled, but 

those matters are under active consideration. 

Senator WONG: So you are not able yet to provide me with an organisational chart for the unit? 

Dr Kennedy: No, I am not. 

Senator WONG: What is the time frame? 



Dr Kennedy: That will be a matter for the government but, given where we are up to in the decision-making 

process, very shortly—a month or so. 

Senator WONG: I am sure we can have a discussion in the next estimates, unless something major happens. 

Dr Kennedy: I feel quite confident that we will be able to discuss it next estimates. 

Senator WONG: Excellent. And some of the questions that I have just asked, I am sure, will be asked. 


Senator WONG: Why is there a financing unit being created inside the Prime Minister's department? In the 

infrastructure department you have Infrastructure Australia. You already have existing bodies which have 

expertise in this area. 

Dr Kennedy: Infrastructure Australia are very much focused on the evaluation of business cases and not so 

much the financing element—though you are correct: they do have some expertise in those areas. 

Senator WONG: Yes, I thought they specifically had expanded their remit to include that aspect of the 

infrastructure question. 

Dr Kennedy: I should in the first instance say you probably should address this matter to them. 

Senator WONG: I am asking for the rationale for this unit. 

Dr Kennedy: Yes, for how this unit complements Infrastructure Australia. You can think of these units 

playing, really, three roles. One is advising around the veracity of the business case for different pieces of 

infrastructure, and that is very much Infrastructure Australia's place. You can also think of that role of advising on 

how the project is unfolding, the risks that are unfolding and whether the project is being delivered on time, and 

that is typically undertaken by the department. The third role is: what is the most efficient way to fund and 

finance this project, to manage the risks associated with the project and also to ensure that you get best value for 

money from, if you like, the minimum contribution from taxpayers and encouraging private sector involvement? 

That is what the IFU, the Infrastructure Financing Unit, will do. You are quite right that this capability does 

already exist in the Public Service, but the unit will bring some of that capability together. I would anticipate that 

we will not, if you like, leave all capacity spread across those departments, as it is. We will bring it together, and 

we will have that unit play that role as a more central capability. 

Senator WONG: So you would anticipate you would pull people out of Infrastructure and IA. Is that the 

idea? 

Dr Kennedy: Not so much IA but perhaps Treasury or Finance, where they also have that capacity. 

Senator WONG: We are very late. There is a lot more I could ask about that in terms of the duplication, but I 

will hold it for the moment. Just to tidy up very quickly, Senator Brandis, I have provided you with the 

documents. It is clear from those that the statement by the Prime Minister in relation to Mr Robert discloses Dr 

Parkinson's conclusion. The Prime Minister has declined to disclose the same conclusion in relation to Ms Ley. 

Can you just tell me why. 

Senator Brandis: That is not quite right. It is certainly the impression one would derive if you only looked at 

the highlighted parts of the documents you have provided to me, Senator Wong, but in the time available I have 

actually had the opportunity to read all of the documents, included the parts you have not highlighted. 

Senator WONG: Sure. 

Senator Brandis: So let me take you through them. Dealing with the press release issued on 12 February 

2016 by the Prime Minister, first of all, he talks about Dr Parkinson's investigation of the matter. Then in the third 

and fourth last paragraphs, the Prime Minister says: 

Mr Robert recognised that this connection would create the impression that at the time he went to Beijing he had 

something personally to gain from the Nimrod Resources project. 

As a result, Mr Robert has asked me not to consider him in the pending reshuffle of the ministry. I thank him for his 

service as a minister and for his candid co-operation with Dr Parkinson in his inquiry. 

Dr Parkinson has given his advice to the governance sub-committee of the Cabinet. 

Dr Parkinson concluded— 

And this is the paragraph you did quote— 

that Mr Robert had acted inconsistently with the Statement of Ministerial Standards, although he accepts that Mr Robert may 

not have intended to do so. He also notes that Mr Robert appears not to have received any financial benefit and that the 

conduct in question did not directly relate to Mr Robert’s Ministerial duties. 

The press conference transcript from 13 January 2017— 



Senator WONG: Just to be clear: I have given you that because we cannot find any equivalent statement in 

respect of that. 

Senator BRANDIS: That is fine, but these are the documents you are relying on. It is three pages so it is too 

long to read out, but allow me to read out two questions and answers that you did not highlight from the second 

page: 

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, only on Monday, Ms Ley said that she had done absolutely nothing wrong and she said 

she was confident she would be back in the Ministry soon and would be cleared by the investigations. What changed in the 

intervening four days? 

PRIME MINISTER: The Minister has - has been engaged in extensive discussions with the Secretary of my Department, 

as indeed, I have— 

Senator WONG: I can read it. 

Senator BRANDIS: Yes, but I am reading it into the Hansard, Senator Wong. 

Senator WONG: We can table it. 

Senator BRANDIS: Senator Wong, it is not as accessible to people who may be interested in this, and I think 

we are being broadcast as well. It continues: 

and she has reached this decision to tender her resignation or give notice of her intention to resign today. 

JOURNALIST: What did Dr Parkinson find in his investigation? 

PRIME MINISTER: I don't want to go into the details of Dr Parkinson's findings. Let me suffice it to say that the Minister 

has come to a judgement about the appropriate course of action and I want to acknowledge that. I believe that's the right 

judgement. She has made a judgement that is, I believe, in the interests of the Government and she has made an appropriate 

judgement and I do want to say that I thank her for her service over many years as Minister for Health and indeed, in other 

important positions. 

This is the bit you did quote— 

JOURNALIST: Is this an admission though that she did the wrong thing? 

PRIME MINISTER: I won't go any further into the situation of Sussan Ley. She has made a decision. She's resigned. 

Now, Senator Wong, when you look at both of those statements, again in the context rather than taking small bits 

out of them, what is clear is that in both cases the Prime Minister references investigations by Dr Parkinson. In 

both cases the Prime Minister announces a conclusion. In the case of Mr Robert, it is a conclusion of evidently Mr 

Robert of his own volition that he did not want to be considered for inclusion in the government in the pending 

reshuffle in February 2016, and in the case of Ms Ley that she had decided that she ought to leave the 

government—in both cases following the discussions with Dr Parkinson. In relation to every material issue— 

Senator WONG: So black is white and white is black. That's impressive. 

Senator BRANDIS: In relation to every material issue, these statements are identical. 

Senator WONG: Okay. I am going to quote again from the statement in relation to Mr Robert: 

Dr Parkinson concluded that Mr Robert had acted inconsistently with the Statement of Ministerial Standards, although he 

accepts that Mr Robert may not have intended to do so. 

I am now going to ask you a direct question: did Dr Parkinson conclude that Ms Ley had acted inconsistently with 

the Statement of Ministerial Standards? 

Senator BRANDIS: I have not discussed the matter directly with Dr Parkinson, but what the Prime Minister 

told us is that having discussed the matter— 

Senator WONG: You are answering a different question. I will ask it again: did Dr Parkinson conclude that 

Ms Ley acted inconsistently with the Statement of Ministerial Standards? 

Senator Brandis: It is the inference I would draw, because the Prime Minister says that, having asked Dr 

Parkinson to investigate the matter, and Ms Ley having discussed the matter with Dr Parkinson, she concluded 

that it was appropriate to tender her resignation. 

Senator WONG: I think you wanted to add to your answer, Ms Hatfield Dodds? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: Thank you, Senator Wong. Just in terms of the COAG performance report, you would 

know that, since 2015, PM&C has published the COAG performance report—since the COAG Reform Council 

was abolished—and this year the information will be released around the time of the first COAG meeting. 

Senator WONG: But there is no role for the Productivity Commission? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: No. 



Senator WONG: No. Thank you. 

Senator MOORE: Ms Hatfield Dodds, I just wanted to get an update on what the process is within the 

department on the coordination of the Sustainable Development Goals. When we had the last round of estimates, 

you said the department had formed an interdepartmental committee which you jointly shared with Foreign 

Affairs, Defence and Trade. At that stage there had not been a meeting. I am just wanting to see what has 

happened now. 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: Just to take one step back, Senator Moore, Foreign Affairs and Trade is leading the work 

for the Australian government around the Sustainable Development Goals, and the role that the Department of the 

Prime Minister and Cabinet is taking is to co-chair the departmental IDC, and I am doing that, but really that is to 

ensure a whole-of-government approach. So there have been two meetings so far, over summer. One was the 

departmental IDC, who met. There was attendance from right across the Australian Public Service, which was 

really great, and that deputies group is underpinned by a working group at the first assistant secretary level. That 

group met the first group in November of last year. Both those meetings focused on mapping existing government 

issues that align with the 2030 agenda; strengthening government communications about the work that we are 

doing, particularly internal to government, to start bringing that together; and identifying new opportunities to 

give effect to the 2030 agenda. There was agreement through both those meetings that the Australian government 

really needed to take the opportunity to engage outside the 2030 agenda. In September last year, there was a civil 

society, business and academic national summit— 

Senator MOORE: The national summit? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: yes—and my co-chair of the deputy-level IDC, Ewen McDonald from DFAT, was at 

that. 

Senator MOORE: So, in terms of the current status, there have been two meetings? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: Yes. 

Senator MOORE: And one was the high-level group and one was the underlying group. Those are the two 

meetings. So there have not been two consecutive meetings; there have been two meetings, of two different 

groups. 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: Correct—and a lot of work being done at the officer level outside those meetings, of 

course, to start pulling those together. But the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be able to give you a 

full picture of what they have been pulling together. 

Senator MOORE: In terms of the domestic responsibilities, which is the difference between these and the 

MDGs, is that really PM&C's focus—if you have divided it between the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade 

element, and they are quite familiar with the process, and PM&C around the SDGs process, which is new? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: It is new, so we are still really settling how all that will work. But, certainly, it is 

PM&C's view that this is an international instrument, which is why DFAT is taking the lead. But we have a role, 

of course, in convening across the APS, looking at all that domestic work, which is particularly useful for DFAT 

because their expertise is international rather than domestic. 

Senator MOORE: What level of resources are allocated within PM&C? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: We have all the resources of the Social Policy Division, who we have been accessing to 

assist with that coordination and facilitation role. PM&C itself has been involved through some initiatives. The 

Smart Cities Plan, the Women's Safety Package, and Closing the Gap are all initiatives within PM&C, but the vast 

majority of the activities and initiatives sit outside in the line portfolios. 

Senator MOORE: Can we get a list of all the departments and who the other personnel are in both of those 

groups? 


Senator MOORE: Also, is there a forward plan in terms of meetings? 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: There is a forward plan, as I understand it, but the meeting dates have not been set yet. 

But, again, DFAT will be able to give you more information. 

Senator MOORE: So that responsibility is with them—to tell us that kind of detail? 


Senator MOORE: Okay. We have particular questions about the role of the Office for Women with goal 5, 

but we will put those on notice because of the time. 

Ms Hatfield Dodds: Okay. 



CHAIR: Senator McAllister. 

Senator McALLISTER: I was hoping to ask questions about Cities. 

Senator Brandis: Chair, before the witnesses come to the table and before we take the evening break, can I 

inquire whether any of the agencies that are on the schedule for this evening and are still waiting but have not 

been reached may be excused—that is, the Remuneration Tribunal, the Digital Transformation Agency, the 

Australian National Audit Office, the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Office of the Inspector- 

General of Intelligence and Security? Can any of those go home? 

CHAIR: Speaking on behalf of government senators, the only agency among those that we have questions for, 

and they are short questions, is the Remuneration Tribunal. But I defer to opposition senators. 

Senator Brandis: Senator McAllister? 

Senator McALLISTER: Opposition senators of course are interested in the activities of all our agencies, but 

in earlier discussions about priorities for tonight we had indicated that DTA was our only priority for this evening. 

Senator Brandis: Okay. So does that mean that the Australian National Audit Office, the Office of the 

Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security may be excused 

for the evening? 

CHAIR: We do have requests from minor-party senators for all of those agencies. We might seek to clarify in 

the break whether they intend to— 

Senator Brandis: Could that be clarified in the break, because it is very burdensome for officers to stay till 11 

only on the basis of requests if the senators who made the requests do not show up. 

CHAIR: The secretary will contact those senators. Actually, that is a good point about the break. We are right 

at the break now. Senator McAllister, do you mind returning to Cities after the break, in 15 minutes? 

Senator McALLISTER: Okay. 

CHAIR: Thank you. We will adjourn and return at 9.30. 


CHAIR: We will now resume with further questions to PM&C by Senator McAllister. 

Senator McALLISTER: I wanted to ask some questions about cities. Thank you very much for staying 

around. I placed a number of questions on notice: 346— 

CHAIR: Sorry, Senator McAllister, I should update about the agencies. The ANAO is now no longer required 

and the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is also free to go. There will be questions on notice but there 

will be no questions that need to be asked tonight. We would still like to hear from the Office of the Inspector- 

General of Intelligence and Security. 

Senator Brandis: They will be overwhelmed with gratitude, Chair! 

Senator McALLISTER: I wanted to ask a couple of questions about cities. I have placed a lot of fact based 

questions on notice, particularly questions on notice 346, 347, 348, 349 and 350. I understand that they are yet to 

be answered. 

Ms Wiley-Smith: I think we will need to check internally and with our office, just to see where those 

questions are up to. 

Senator WONG: Could we have the date on which they were first provided to the PMO please? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: I will have to take that on notice. 

Senator McALLISTER: All right, then. Some of these questions go to questions that I have previously 

placed on notice. What is the total funding for the City Deals program? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: The total funding this year for the division itself—there is the Cities Division, which runs 

City Deals but which also looks at indicator framework, and we also have a program that we are running at the 

moment, the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program—is $4.971 million. It is almost $5 million. 

Senator McALLISTER: Does that include any funding that might be allocated through City Deals? Is that all 

funding for the program, or is it just for the staffing of the program? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: That is departmental funding. It pays for staffing, secondees and also for any expertise that 

we might need to procure. 

Senator McALLISTER: Will the City Deals program be expanding to include other cities? 



Ms Wiley-Smith: Yes, it will. As outlined in the government's Smart Cities Plan that was released in April of 

last year, at the moment there are three cities which we are negotiating with— 

Senator McALLISTER: We have talked about those here before. 

Ms Wiley-Smith: Yes, we have. At the moment we are also working with our colleagues in the states and 

territories to talk through what they might like to do in terms of a capital city. All first ministers have been 

provided with a letter from the Prime Minister, asking them whether they would like a deal for their capital cities. 

Senator McALLISTER: What is the timing for finalising selection of a city for the next deal? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: We would expect that that would occur in the first half of 2017, so not far away. 

Senator McALLISTER: The process has been a letter to first ministers in the states and territories. 

Ms Wiley-Smith: Yes. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is any further expansion beyond this one capital city anticipated? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: There is, and we are still working through that. So we are looking at the capital cities first, 

but then we are also looking at what we might do in terms of other urban areas and also regional cities. 

Senator McALLISTER: Will all states and territories be eligible to participate in that selection process? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: The details of the process are still being worked through. 

Senator McALLISTER: Who is involved in working them through? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: That process is an internal policy process. That is occurring in Prime Minister and Cabinet 

with our colleagues in other agencies as required. 

Senator McALLISTER: On that question, who is working on cities, aside from the staff in Prime Minister 

and Cabinet? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: Is this across other agencies of the Commonwealth? 

Senator McALLISTER: Yes—and of course I am not asking about individual officers; I am asking: which 

departments are participating in these processes? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: We have most departments in the Commonwealth participating in the processes, and we 

also have secondees from those agencies working within the Cities Division at the moment. 

Senator McALLISTER: How many secondees are working in the Cities Division? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: At this point we have 11, and I can take you through the department if you would like. 

Senator McALLISTER: Quickly—that would be great. 

Ms Wiley-Smith: The Treasury; Productivity Commission; Department of Industry, Innovation and Science; 

Department of Environment and Energy; Department of Employment; Department of Education and Training; 

Department of Defence; the Australian Public Service Commission; and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. 

Senator McALLISTER: Nine agencies and 11 staff. 

Ms Wiley-Smith: Yes, correct. 

Senator McALLISTER: How is the department consulting with industry and stakeholders? Is there a 

structured process or is that an informal process? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: It is both. We are working through, at the moment, a more structured process, which the 

Assistant Minister for Cities will be announcing, I am sure, in the near future, which is a reference group. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is this the Cities Reference Group? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: It is, yes. 

Senator McALLISTER: Has that been established yet? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: No. We hope that it will be established shortly. 

Senator McALLISTER: Has the membership for the Cities Reference Group been finalised? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: No. Those decisions are still being made. 

Senator McALLISTER: What kinds of individuals or organisations will be represented on the Cities 

Reference Group? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: I believe that Assistant Minister Taylor has made a statement about who will be involved. 

From memory, it was experts within the cities area, as well as leading academics, and stakeholders would be 

invited. 



Senator McALLISTER: I understand that there has been a commitment to publish a generic city deal process 

document. Has that happened? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: Yes, we have a commitment to do that, and we— 

Senator McALLISTER: Has the publication happened? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: We are working through it at the moment and, again, we hope to be able to publish that 

shortly. 

Senator McALLISTER: When you say 'shortly'— 

Ms Wiley-Smith: Part of the issue for us is that we have got one city deal up and running with Townsville, 

and I think it is important that we also look at the processes that we run through with the next two city deals, and 

then, once we are in that position, we will be able to publish that information. They are all slightly different and 

they are quite bespoke. So we know what the process is now, but we would really like to test it with the other two 

city deals. 

Senator McALLISTER: So you are not intending to publish the generic city deal process until you have 

finalised each of the three deals which have already been announced? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: No. We are actually waiting to find out some of the details in terms of the negotiations, and 

then we will be able to publish it. So we have a sketch now of what that would be, and we are actually testing it 

with some of our colleagues who have been involved in those three city deals. So I would anticipate that it will be 

released publicly on our website in the first half of 2017. 

Senator McALLISTER: Have you published any detail about the regional city deal competitive bid process? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: No. That is part of the ongoing policy work that is occurring at the moment where we will 

actually look at the pipeline of future city deals. Again, I think Assistant Minister Taylor may have mentioned that 

it will be published during 2017. 

Senator McALLISTER: So it is ongoing policy work looking at a pipeline— 

Ms Wiley-Smith: I should have mentioned: we also work with our colleagues in state and local governments. 

There is quite high engagement with them on this issue and also with some of the key stakeholders. So we are 

informed by their advice as well. 

Senator McALLISTER: The competitive bid process is a process, though, presumably, not a pipeline? I 

mean, a pipeline is generally understood to be a list of projects, but what is promised is a competitive bid process. 

Ms Wiley-Smith: Yes. Both of them are part of the policy process that is ongoing at the moment. 

Senator McALLISTER: So you are unable to establish the competitive bid process until you have 

established the pipeline? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: No. What I am saying is— 

Senator McALLISTER: I am trying to understand the relationship between these two things because, 

honestly, ordinarily in a competitive bid process, I guess I had imagined that you set up the process and then you 

see what it produces in terms of a pipeline, rather than the other way around. 

Ms Wiley-Smith: We have a lot of interest in city deals, and so we are going through the process at the 

moment to see how we could produce a fair process into the future. In the capital city sphere, we are already 

promising that we are actually going to work with all willing state and territory governments on a capital city 

process. So we have to work that through to have a look at what the pipeline looks like. In terms of the capacity of 

the division, we think that we can only do about three or four city deals at any one time. That is why any 

competitive process needs to be linked to the pipeline process. 

Senator McALLISTER: You mentioned there the capital city pipeline— 

Ms Wiley-Smith: Correct. 

Senator McALLISTER: but my question which produced the answer about the pipeline and the policy 

process was actually about regional city deals. Is that a similar process you are working through? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: That is the process that you just mentioned that could be a competitive process. In terms of 

how it is moving forward, it is in the policy sphere at the moment. We are working on it, as I mentioned, with our 

colleagues from across the Commonwealth, within PM&C, with some of our colleagues from state and local 

governments, and also stakeholders, to work out how we would design that process. But at the same time we are 

also very aware of capacity within the division, and we will be looking at how we actually manage that in the 

policy process with the capital deals as well. So they are tied together. 



Senator McALLISTER: Just for the purposes of being very clear, are you also then developing a regional 

pipeline as part of this policy work? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: The regional process that you have mentioned is being considered as part of the policy 

process that we are going through at the moment. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is the answer then no—there is not a pipeline of regional agreements? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: There is both. 

Dr Kennedy: Perhaps I could help. Some of the premiers have written back proposing what would be termed 

regional cities in the questions about capital city deals, and so we are collecting that information. And then, in 

some cases, some of the jurisdictions are talking to us about how a city deal might work on a broader regional 

basis. For example, consider South-East Queensland: would we be doing a city deal for Brisbane, for the Gold 

Coast, for the Sunshine Coast, for Toowoomba? South-East Queensland has had sophisticated planning processes 

for many years about thinking about that area as a region. I am not trying to be evasive at all; I am just trying to 

give you some sense of the complexity as we work through those issues. If we wanted to run a very simple type of 

regional competitive process, before we launched off into that we would want to at least be clear with the 

jurisdictions exactly how that would work and how they would then go about sequencing and informing us on 

their priorities, because I might add that the states are a common partner in every city deal. It is a deal between 

three levels of government and with broader community engagement. So, because we will be working with states 

over a number of city deals, and it is a collaborative process, we need their buy-in, and that is what we are 

working through with them. 

Senator McALLISTER: I understand that the minister has also announced that a new National Cities 

Performance Framework will be developed. I think you may have mentioned that in your earlier evidence, Ms 

Wiley-Smith. When will that be published? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: That is the second half of 2017. It is being worked on now. We have engaged experts to 

assist us and there will be further consultation on that before it is published. 

Senator McALLISTER: Will the State of Australian Cities report continue to be published? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: The National Cities Performance Framework will produce similar material to the State of 

Australian Cities report, so the report itself will not be continued in its current format. However, the information 

will be available in the new format with the performance framework. I should also mention that the underlying 

data that was used to inform the State of Australian Cities reports will continue to be published in the Progress in 

Australian Regions yearbook, which is still produced by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional 

Development. So the underlying data will still be available; the information that was in the cities reports will still 

be available; but it will be a different format. It will be online and you will be able to interrogate the data once 

you go in and look at a particular region. 

Senator McALLISTER: When was the decision taken to change the department's outputs in terms of the 

publication—in particular, to terminate the State of Australian Cities report and migrate to these two new 

documents that you are speaking about? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: Just to clarify, the Progress in Australian Regions yearbook, I believe, is the continuation of 

a document, so it is continuing to be published by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. In 

terms of the National Cities Performance Framework, that was informed by 130 submissions that were made to 

the Smart Cities Plan. 

Senator McALLISTER: I am asking who made the decision to terminate the State of Australian Cities 

report, and when was the decision made? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: I would have to take that on notice. 

Senator McALLISTER: Was it the minister? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: It happened before my time, so I would have to take that on notice. 

Senator McALLISTER: Dr Kennedy? 

Dr Kennedy: I would presume it was Assistant Minister Taylor, but we will confirm that for you. 

Ms Wiley-Smith: Just to confirm again, the information that was in the cities report will still be available. It is 

just going to be in a different format. 

Senator McALLISTER: Can I ask about the Smart Cities summit that was held in April last year? Were the 

stakeholders at that summit asked to provide an evaluation of the summit? 



Dr Kennedy: I did attend the summit. It was not long after I started. I cannot recall if they were asked. I will 

have to take that on notice. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is the department's overall view of the summit that it was a success? 

Dr Kennedy: Yes. I attended the summit. I attended some of the workshops. I found it a valuable exercise. I 

am not aware of us undertaking a formal evaluation by going back to stakeholders, but that is what I will take on 

notice and see if such a process was undertaken. 

Senator McALLISTER: I would also be interested in the outcomes of that evaluation, and what stakeholders 

said about the value of the summit. Are there going to be any other summits? Is anything planned? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: There are no summits planned. 

Senator SMITH: I am curious to know the attitude of the Western Australian state government to the City 

Deals initiative. 

CHAIR: That is very parochial of you, Senator! 

Ms Wiley-Smith: We have had lots of engagement from officials in Western Australia. They are quite 

engaged in thinking through what a city deal might look like for Perth. 

Senator SMITH: Are you going to give a sense of what sort of areas they might be thinking about in Perth? 

Dr Kennedy: I am not an expert on this at all, but my understanding is that the interest from officials was in a 

broad Perth region deal, partly to support the very detailed environmental strategic assessment that has gone on 

over the past couple of years across that area. As you would know, considerable city planning has gone on in the 

past in Perth, so they would be well placed to be part of such an arrangement. 

Senator SMITH: I do not think you mentioned the Western Sydney City Deal or the Launceston City Deal. 

Can you give us a brief update on both of those? I thought that the government might have been signing the deal 

in early 2017. Can you give a brief update in regard to the Western Sydney City Deal and the Launceston City 

Deal? 

Ms Wiley-Smith: The Launceston City Deal is progressing very well. We hope to be able to make 

announcement with the three levels of government agreeing to the deal shortly. That would be in the first half of 

2017. There is very strong engagement with the deal, including with the University of Tasmania. At this point we 

are leveraging off the government's commitments for $130 million to relocate the University of Tasmania's 

Launceston campus into the CBD to revitalise the CBD of Launceston. There is also a further $7.5 million to 

rejuvenate the CBD through the Launceston City Heart project. There is also $2 million for the delivery of a 

National Institute for Forest Products innovation hub, which is being delivered through our colleagues in the 

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. The significant benefits we hope to see through that deal include 

increased economic, population and job growth, greater access to education and training, improved livability and 

vibrancy of the inner city, increased innovation and also improved health of the Tamar estuary. So it is quite a 

significant deal for the region. 

On Western Sydney, we are working very closely with our colleagues in state government in Western Sydney. 

We also have very good engagement from all eight councils that have agreed to be part of the City Deal. They 

have agreed to meet regularly with both ourselves and also our colleagues from the Department of Premier and 

Cabinet and the Greater Sydney Commission to talk through what might be possible in terms of a city deal for the 

region. It is really pleasing that they have engaged quite strongly in this. They are working together as a region 

and funding their own secretariat to enable them to engage, and we are having monthly meetings with them. We 

also have separate officials meetings with our colleagues across the Commonwealth and also with the New South 

Wales government. There is also a ministerial committee which has been set up to help oversee and steer the city 

deal. At this point we are hoping to sign the deal in the second half of 2017. 

CHAIR: I thank officials from the department. 

Remuneration Tribunal 

CHAIR: I welcome officials from the Remuneration Tribunal. I also welcome officers from the Australian 

Public Service Commission, who provide the secretariat support to the Remuneration Tribunal. Mr Palmer and 

Mr Lloyd, do either of you have an opening statement that you would like to make? 

Mr Palmer: No, thank you. 

CHAIR: I have some questions about the Remuneration Tribunal's new responsibilities to do with Australia 

Post. I want to first check that you are familiar with the government's request that in future the Remuneration 

Tribunal set the pay for the Australia Post CEO. 



Mr Palmer: I am aware of that. 

CHAIR: Could I start with a basic question: are there any other similar bodies or organisations which the 

tribunal has experience setting pay for? 

Mr Palmer: Within the principal executive office structure there are about 60 offices. 

CHAIR: I am thinking more about whether there are other government organisations which are similar in 

nature or broadly comparable to Australia Post that the tribunal has experience setting salaries for? I am thinking 

of the Reserve Bank, for example. 

Mr Palmer: There is the Reserve Bank, the Australian Broadcasting Commission—I have a list of them. 

There are a range of offices within that 60, but the Reserve Bank and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation are 

the ones, probably, that are— 

CHAIR: Please briefly outline the process for determining appropriate pay for senior executives such as 

those. 

Mr Palmer: The Remuneration Tribunal has set in place a principal executive office structure which has five 

bands. When a new PEO is approved into that structure, the normal process would be for the Minister Assisting 

the Prime Minister for the Public Service would declare the office a principal executive office at the request of the 

relevant minister. The minister would declare the office within a particular band and the minister can also 

determine commencing remuneration. The minister takes advice from the Remuneration Tribunal in that context 

and the tribunal normally receives a submission from the employing body in relation to remuneration for the 

office. 

CHAIR: What is the current highest band set by the Remuneration Tribunal? 

Mr Palmer: The highest band is a Principal Executive Office E. The total remuneration range is from 

$469,340 upwards. 

CHAIR: Upwards? Is there no upper limit on that range? 

Mr Palmer: No, there is no upper limit. 

CHAIR: To your knowledge, who is the highest paid person in that range? 

Mr Palmer: The highest office in that range would be Governor of the Reserve Bank? 

CHAIR: What is that figure—in rough terms? You do not have to give me the exact dollar amount. 

Mr Palmer: In rough terms, it is just over a million. That is total remuneration. 

CHAIR: I would imagine the next most comparable one would be the ABC—a little bit less than that? 

Mr Palmer: That is correct. 

CHAIR: Broadly in that range? 

Mr Palmer: Yes. 

CHAIR: What criteria does the tribunal use to assess a fair wage for these positions? Obviously they are quite 

unique. Do you, for example, use international evidence about what a reserve bank governor in another country 

would be paid? 

Mr Palmer: The tribunal takes into account a whole range of matters in determining what is called a reference 

rate for a principal executive office. It looks at the functions of the office, the size of the organisation, the 

responsibilities, the public profile, the candidate pool you might be drawing on, and the skills and qualification of 

the individual you are looking at. If there are comparable organisations within the tribunal's jurisdiction, the 

tribunal will obviously look at remuneration that has already been decided—and, yes, more broadly, if there are 

comparable offices in other countries, that would, while it would be less of a deciding issue, be something we 

would have a look at. 

CHAIR: With respect to Australia Post, obviously there are very similar organisations internationally— 

because lots of countries have government run or government owned postal offices. From my knowledge of them, 

remuneration ranges from, at the low end, I think, around A$400,000 to, at the high end, about A$2.5 million. 

From your experience, is that the kind of range you would expect the Remuneration Tribunal to set? 

Mr Palmer: I cannot really comment on what the tribunal would do. We would consider a submission from 

the board of Australia Post and make some assessments for the tribunal to consider. 

CHAIR: How long does this process normally take? 

Mr Palmer: The tribunal tends to meet anywhere between six and nine times a year—about every six weeks. 

If we receive a submission in the secretariat, or addressed to the tribunal through the secretariat, we would tend to 



try to schedule that for the next available meeting. But it depends on the nature of the information that is provided 

by the employing body and the amount of research that might be required to get an informed brief to the tribunal. 

CHAIR: When is the next meeting? 

Mr Palmer: I believe it is around 27 March. 

CHAIR: Australia Post have announced that their CEO is stepping down and they will soon be going through 

a recruitment process for a new CEO. I imagine they will need some guidance from the Remuneration Tribunal 

relatively soon so that they can begin that process. It would be a hard process to conduct without it. So would you 

expect that at the next meeting—in late March, I think you said—this matter would be able to be resolved? 

Mr Palmer: That is difficult to say. It is subject to receipt of a submission from the Australia Post board, but 

it is possible. 

CHAIR: So obviously you have not received a submission from the Australia Post board yet. 

Mr Palmer: No. 

CHAIR: This may be a difficult question to answer, but I am going to ask anyway. How much notice would 

you require from Australia Post prior to that meeting in order to provide the necessary information to tribunal 

members to make a decision? 

Mr Palmer: I expect that we should be able to get a fairly comprehensive submission from the Australia Post 

board. It is a matter of the secretariat assessing that submission in the context of putting a brief to the tribunal. So 

it is possible that it could go to that meeting. But, again, it depends on the nature of the information provided, 

when it is provided and how much time we have in that context. 

CHAIR: Might I understand from that answer that, should Australia Post provide you with sufficient 

information, it may be able to be done more quickly and expeditiously? 

Mr Palmer: As I say, we would try to make a brief available to the tribunal of its next scheduled meeting. It 

would depend on whether that information is received and, again, on the quality of the information and how easy 

it is to make the assessment in that context. 

CHAIR: Understood. Do any other senators have questions for the tribunal? That being the case, I thank the 

tribunal. 

Digital Transformation Agency 

[10:02] 

CHAIR: I welcome Ms Nerida O'Loughlin, the Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Digital Transformation 

Agency, and officers. Ms O'Loughlin, do you have an opening statement? 

Ms O'Loughlin: I would just like to provide the committee with a brief update on the role of the new agency 

and its work to date. The agency was established in October 2016 through the renaming of the former Digital 

Transformation Office and the transfer and creation of a number of important new functions. In essence, the 

agency continues the capability-building, design and delivery roles of the former DTO, but its remit has been 

significantly broadened to include whole-of-government ICT policy, strategy and procurement, as well as the 

creation of a new whole-of-government assurance function. These changes reflect the government's view that its 

digital transformation agenda can only be delivered by having all the leaders to effect such change in a single 

central agency. 

I am pleased to advise the committee that the DTA has made solid progress over the last four months to deliver 

on its new remit. For example, we launched the Government Digital Transformation Roadmap in December, 

which sets out the strategic vision, major pieces of work and time lines for delivering on the government's digital 

transformation agenda for the next 18 months. We also released, in partnership with DHS, an alpha video for the 

myGov platform, showing the changes that will make it easier to use on any device. This month the performance 

dashboard that we built passed its public beta stage. We are the first agency to publish our cost per transaction 

metric on the dashboard platform. 

Last week, we launched an expanded digital marketplace, which is in beta stage and represents a new model 

for government procurement. It is end-to-end digital, bringing together sellers and buyers, making transactions 

easier and faster—and still compliant with Commonwealth procurement rules. I am pleased to advise the 

committee that to date the marketplace has 330 buyers and 254 sellers with about 500 waiting to join, and it has 

enabled more than $12 million in transactions, with more than 93 per cent of those flowing to small and medium 

enterprises. I acknowledge that many of these important projects were commenced by the former DTO and have 

just now come to fruition. 



We have also made a pivot on another DTO commenced project, gov.au, where we think we can deliver a 

faster and more effective approach, rather than a single website, to deliver on our objective to make government 

services simple, clear and fast. We have also made good progress in transferring in and establishing our new 

functions. Perhaps most critically, we have established the new Digital Investment Management Office, which 

will have whole-of-government oversight of major ICT and digital projects. This office will work with agencies 

to set targets and milestones, track benefits, identify opportunities for sharing projects and troubleshoot where 

things are not going to plan. Importantly, it will provide visibility of the whole-of-government ICT and digital 

project portfolio for the very first time. 

The assistant minister for digital transformation announced on 16 February that the first task for this office will 

be to immediately review all significant government ICT projects. This review is intended to provide greater 

transparency and oversight of the government's $6.2 billion annual ICT spend. We have commenced the review 

process and are working with departments and agencies to report to the government by mid-year. The DTA is not, 

and is not intended to be, responsible for the delivery of every ICT and digital project across government. That 

responsibility lies with departments and agencies that are developing and implementing these projects. Our role is 

to work in partnership with departments and agencies—as we have done, for example, on myGov—to bring the 

DTA's specific expertise in user centred design, technology and delivery to their projects. The DTA will also 

provide the government with greater assurance that agencies are making the right technology choices and that 

projects are contributing to its transformation agenda and are delivering real benefits. 

In conclusion, while the government's ambition for the Digital Transformation Agency has not been fully 

realised in these four short months, we have made good progress. I believe this agency has strong and unique 

capabilities that can help departments and agencies improve their services as well as provide greater assurance to 

government that projects are on track and will deliver important public policy benefits. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these opening comments. We are happy to answer the committee's 

questions. 

Senator McALLISTER: Thank you, Ms O'Loughlin. I would like to start where you started with your 

opening remarks, which is the creation of the DTA. I am wondering what kind of analysis was undertaken within 

government prior to the creation of the DTA and the decision to integrate these functions. 

Ms O'Loughlin: I will make a comment and then pass the question over to PM&C. For many years there has 

been an attempt by successive governments to improve ICT project development and delivery, and through the 

election campaign the government was clear that it wanted to make sure that ICT procurement was improved, 

planning was improved and, importantly, assurance to government was improved. I have not been involved in the 

research, but I think that is some of the context around the creation of the new agency, so that all the particular 

levers that are needed to affect change are in one agency. I turn to Dr Kennedy for the background. 

Dr Kennedy: I joined the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in April last year and there were 

discussions when I joined about whether the role and scope of the DTA was right. Even then, as I came to educate 

myself around the matters around the DTA, there was an ongoing discussion about what this organisation should 

look like now, whether it should change through the future and, maybe, that it should potentially change again—it 

needs to respond to the circumstances that are in front of it. I think I mentioned at the last estimates that of course 

once we were in the caretaker period within the service we continued that conversation—among ourselves, of 

course, not with the government—through the caretaker period. When the government was returned we reengaged 

with the government around: what is the optimal structure for this agency and how do we best maximise 

its impact? The discussion was taking place across a number of agencies—the ones with major ICT projects, such 

as DHS, Health, tax, Finance and other central agencies. It was looking at how other jurisdictions were going 

through their transformation process. It is really through that bringing together of different people's views that 

ultimately a view is formed to expand the agency. The decisions, of course— 

Senator McALLISTER: I appreciate that, and that is consistent with your earlier evidence. Was that 

conversation, either Dr Kennedy or Ms O'Loughlin, informed by a formal review of DTO? 

Dr Kennedy: I do not recall, for example, the equivalent of a specific DTO review. The DTO was part of the 

functional efficiency review of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

Senator McALLISTER: Who led that review? 

Dr Kennedy: David Thodey. Its functions were examined through that and Mr Thodey did review its 

operations and reported his views on its effectiveness through that exercise, and the department more broadly. 

Senator McALLISTER: Could you just step me through the timeline for that review, when the functional 

efficiency review of PM&C was concluded? 



Dr Kennedy: I apologise for this, I am going to have to take it on notice. 

Senator McALLISTER: Was it before or after the election, or during the caretaker period? 

Dr Kennedy: I think it was completed after the election but I will get the precise dates for you on the 

functional efficiency review. 

Senator McALLISTER: I wonder if that could be done in the time remaining. It is presumably something— 

Dr Kennedy: I do not expect that there is an officer down there watching at the moment, but there may be. I 

will check whether there is a colleague. The timing you are talking about, from memory, is roughly right. I started 

in April and I do not think the functional efficiency review kicked off for another couple of months. Roughly in 

my mind I have it kicking off around June-Julyish and then running for a month and a half along those line. I will 

confirm the details. 

Senator McALLISTER: Has that report been released? 

Dr Kennedy: Apparently I have been left alone. If you do not mind I will take it on notice but I should be able 

to respond quickly tomorrow. 

Senator McALLISTER: Has that review been released. 

Dr Kennedy: I do not believe so. 

Senator McALLISTER: Are you able to tell us what its key recommendations were in relation to the DTO? 

Dr Kennedy: I can that it has not been released, and that is a matter for government. Ms Kelly is not here to 

help me on this matter but I understand that she manages the functional efficiency review process, and I 

understand they do go through cabinet processes, which I do not think that one has finalised. I can say this: the 

broad thrust of the recommendations of the review are entirely consistent with the subsequent announcement 

around the DTA. 

Senator McALLISTER: Can I ask this then: when we talked about this at the last estimates, I asked you very 

directly about the discussions and processes that had taken place in government in the lead up to the creation of 

the DTA, and the functional efficiency review was not raised by you nor was it raised by Mr Alexander. Why 

didn't you raise it when I asked you these questions last time? 

Dr Kennedy: I apologise, Senator, for that omission, it did not occur to me at the time. When you asked me 

specifically about reviews this time it occurred to me. 

Senator McALLISTER: Mr Alexander? 

Mr Alexander: I did not work at PM&C for that review, I was at Treasury, so I was not part of that review 

process. 

Senator McALLISTER: Were you aware of the review, Mr Alexander? 

Mr Alexander: Was I aware of the review at that time? 

Senator McALLISTER: Headed by Mr Thodey. 

Mr Alexander: I was aware of the review, yes. Was I aware of the recommendations of it? I think I had a 

broad thrust of them as well but I did not see the final review and I did not know the timing of the process of it. 

Dr Kennedy: I should say, Senator, that this is an omission on my part and not Mr Alexander's. It is PM&C's 

functional efficiency review. 

Senator McALLISTER: I guess the challenge I have is that, if you cast back to the last time we talked about 

this, it was the October estimates. This announcement that there was a DTA was very, very new. There was 

understandable interest in the circumstances that had led to its creation. I was very specific, and we spent quite a 

lot of time talking about it. You have confirmed tonight that the functional efficiency review did make specific 

recommendations about DTO, and yet it was not raised in response to those specific questions— 

Dr Kennedy: I can only point to my human fallibility. I remember that those questions were coming at about 

half past 10 or a quarter to 11 last time. It did not occur to me to reflect back on the functional efficiency review. 

The functional efficiency review was about Prime Minister and Cabinet primarily, but of course it looked at the 

portfolio agencies, of which the DTO was one. It was not a functional efficiency review of the DTO, but, as part 

of doing a functional efficiency review of the portfolio and the department, it did touch on the DTA—the DTO at 

that time—and how the DTO worked with the department and those types of aspects. As I said, I can only repeat 

my apology for that omission last time. 

Senator McALLISTER: From a process perspective, did the functional efficiency review involve Mr Paul 

Shetler, the former head of the DTO? 



Dr Kennedy: I presume so. I presume he would have had discussions with Mr Thodey— 

Senator McALLISTER: But you do not know? 

Dr Kennedy: but I do not know. I was not on the review secretariat or part of those discussions. 

Senator McALLISTER: Ms O'Loughlin, are you aware? 

Ms O'Loughlin: No, I am not. 

Senator McALLISTER: Anyone at the table? Did the functional efficiency review make a recommendation 

about the position previously occupied by Mr Shetler? 

Dr Kennedy: The CEO of the DTO? I do not recall it doing that, but I have to say that I am going to have to 

take these questions on notice. There are two issues here. One is that I do not have the detail of the functional 

efficiency review in front of me. The second is that the functional efficiency review, as I understand it, is a matter 

that is still to go through a cabinet discussion, and I have to be wary of that—for government to have that 

opportunity to have that discussion. 

Senator McALLISTER: Fair enough. Ms O'Loughlin, how often do you meet with the assistant minister? 

Ms O'Loughlin: I meet with the assistant minister each week. 

Senator McALLISTER: It is a weekly meeting? 

Ms O'Loughlin: It is a regular meeting, but often we have additional meetings during the week on particular 

subjects. 

Senator McALLISTER: Dr Kennedy, what were the arrangements for meetings between the assistant 

minister and the former CEO of the Digital Transformation Office? 

Dr Kennedy: My understanding was that the assistant minister met regularly with the former CEO, Mr 

Shetler. 

Senator McALLISTER: When you say 'regularly', what do you understand by that? 

Dr Kennedy: I actually do not know their precise calendar, but I can provide you with that general feedback 

that they met regularly. 

Senator McALLISTER: So that might be monthly? 

Dr Kennedy: I think it would be more than monthly, but I cannot tell you whether they had a scheduled 

weekly meeting in the manner that Ms O'Loughlin just outlined. But they did meet regularly. 

Senator McALLISTER: I would appreciate it if you would answer my question on notice. I am interested to 

understand what that relationship was like because there has been some quite public commentary about Mr 

Shetler's departure. I am interested to understand what the nature of his relationship was within the government. 

I would like to have a conversation about the pivot that you referred to in your opening remarks, Ms 

O'Loughlin. Can you explain what that is? 

Ms O'Loughlin: Yes. The research that the DTO previously undertook indicated that around 50 per cent of 

Australians who look up government information services online experience a problem, so that is the nub of the 

problem that the DTO, and from there the DTA, had been charged with remedying. 

Senator McALLISTER: Just to clarify: 50 per cent of people who seek information from a government 

website have trouble doing so? 

Ms O'Loughlin: They have trouble doing it. We remain committed to improving those services, reducing the 

number of government websites and making services simpler, cheaper and faster. I think the original intent from 

the DTO was modelled on some experience in the UK of building a single gov.au domain, and they had been 

working on that for a considerable length of time. We paused the project to have a think about whether or not that 

was the fastest and most effective way of delivering the outcome that we wanted to achieve. 

Senator McALLISTER: When did that pause take place? 

Ms O'Loughlin: That was late October. 

Senator McALLISTER: It was paused in late October. Who made that decision? 

Ms O'Loughlin: That was my decision. 

Senator McALLISTER: Was the assistant minister involved in that—or any other member of— 

Ms O'Loughlin: There had been discussions previously. There was not a lot of widespread support across the 

APS for a single gov.au domain. There were also positions put to us and evidence put to us by other government 

departments that they were already working on quite large government transformation projects of their websites 



internally, so we thought that going to the effort of developing a gov.au domain would actually override some of 

the transformation work already being undertaken by departments and that a better place for us to provide 

assistance was through greater guidance, producing guides to help people do their own transformation, working 

with departments and agencies on a one-to-one basis and providing much more broad support. The work that we 

have done on gov.au—the research that we have done around improving people's experience, the practical 

collaboration that we have done with government agencies, and the guides and toolkits that we developed for 

gov.au—has all been reused. At this moment, what we are doing is moving towards the development of a wholeof-government 

content strategy. 

Senator McALLISTER: Can I step back, though, to the time line around gov.au. You said that DTO and 

perhaps other partners within government had been working on a single website for some time. I think that at the 

last estimates Mr Alexander and I discussed this, and at that time, which was prior to this decision to pause, Mr 

Alexander said—and this is at page 194 of the Hansard: 

We have delivered an alpha—a demonstration version—of that site. It was delivered in March 2016. We have now released a 

beta version—an updated version—of that site on a new technology platform … We are now in consultation with agencies 

about adding new content, new sites, to the gov.au platform. 

The next steps according to your evidence at that time, Mr Alexander—before your decision, Ms O'Loughlin— 

were that you would 'build that site out from that first-stage beta into a larger beta and then make that a live site'. 

That was where it was at. 

Ms O'Loughlin: That was where it was at. 

Senator McALLISTER: Had there been work done on a business case to support that? 

Ms O'Loughlin: Yes, there had. 

Senator McALLISTER: What was the nature of that work? When did it commence? 

Ms O'Loughlin: In December 2015, DTO presented the alpha of a possible approach to a single government 

domain. Throughout 2016, the DTO progressed with a beta version of gov.au as well as the business case to 

deliver a single website for government. It was in late 2016 that decisions were made to consider an alternative, 

faster and more cost-effective approach to improving government services online. 

Senator McALLISTER: How many DTO officials or government officials were working on that gov.au 

business case? There has been a publicly reported figure of 50. 

Ms O'Loughlin: During that whole process, it is fair to say that staffing levels in that area fluctuated. They 

started off quite low. They went up to about 53, I think it was, at the time—it was not just the business case; it 

was the business case and all the underlying work, the production of the guides and toolkits, the work with 

government agencies; all of those. So we went up to about 53. 

Senator McALLISTER: Can I pause you there, Ms O'Loughlin, because I want to understand. It seems 

unusual to me that this work would have been going on in parallel. Ordinarily, a business case precedes the 

decision to allocate significant resources to a project. 

Ms O'Loughlin: That work was being undertaken under the original remit to come up with—it was the 

fundamental work that you would need to do to put in place—a single government website. You could not just put 

the website in place; you really needed to do the development work to get to that point. 

Senator McALLISTER: But at that point of time you did not have a business case indicating that— 

Ms O'Loughlin: We did not have a business case for the scaling-up and the rolling-out of the gov.au website, 

but the DTA had been working on the fundamentals that would underpin that. 

Senator McALLISTER: Was that a cabinet level decision? 

Ms O'Loughlin: I am not sure that it was a cabinet level decision. 

Senator McALLISTER: Was it just a ministerial decision? Who made the decision to proceed in this way, to 

allocate these resources to the underlying work before the business case for the expansion was completed? 

Ms O'Loughlin: The work that was done was to lead up to the business case to government for the scaling-up 

and rolling-out of the gov.au solution across all government departments and agencies. The decision to do that 

was taken before December 2015. 

Senator McALLISTER: By whom? 

Ms O'Loughlin: I do not have that. 

Senator McALLISTER: Dr Kennedy, do you know? Mr Alexander? 



Mr Del Rio: It would have been the CEO of the time—being responsible for the resources of the agency. 

Senator McALLISTER: There was no ministerial involvement? 

Ms O'Loughlin: We will take that on notice. It predates most of us. 

Senator McALLISTER: You said that staff numbers fluctuated. Within what range did they fluctuate? 

Ms O'Loughlin: The 53 was probably the peak. We then got extensive feedback from departments and 

agencies that they were already well advanced on progress with transformation of their websites, and their calls 

on us were more about guidance, toolkits, research and user centred design expertise. We therefore decided that 

we would cease development of that gov.au single website and would focus our attention on the things that the 

agencies and departments were asking of us in the short term—those guides and toolkits—but in the longer term 

we would develop a content strategy that departments and agencies could benefit from in improving their 

websites themselves. 

Senator McALLISTER: Of those 53 people who were working on this project prior to this decision in late 

October to pivot, how many were working on the business case and how many were working on the underlying 

documentation? 

Ms O'Loughlin: My advice is that the business case involved about six people. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is it true that the business case was to be considered by cabinet and then withdrawn 

immediately before cabinet met? 

Ms O'Loughlin: I do not believe I have that detail. 

Dr Kennedy: I do not have that detail in front of me. Unless one of the other officials does, I am happy to take 

your question on notice. 

Senator McALLISTER: When was the decision to pivot announced publicly? 

Ms O'Loughlin: I do not think we have gone out widely, at this point in time, about the content strategy. But 

we have been talking to departments and agencies about what the best alternative approach to the website would 

be, and we have been working with them to ascertain what their requirements are. 

Senator McALLISTER: There has been no public communication about it? 

Ms O'Loughlin: There has been communication between departments and agencies, yes, but no broad based 

public announcement—mainly because we wanted to make sure that what we were developing with departments 

and agencies was going to be something that was useful to them and that they could benefit from. In the meantime 

we have been working with them using the tools and guides we have already developed. Many departments have 

taken those up. 

Senator McALLISTER: Your answer suggests you may come to some landing about what is going to be put 

in place with this gov.au website. Is there a time line for that project? 

Ms O'Loughlin: I think that will be relatively soon. We have been working with departments and agencies 

about the shape of that strategy. As I mentioned in my opening statement, in December we released a roadmap for 

the digital transformation agenda. That refers to a channel strategy, which is slightly different, but I think we will 

put that content strategy into the broader based government roadmap so people can see when we are going to start 

it, when we are going to deliver and the process for getting there. 

Senator McALLISTER: How many websites are operated and maintained by the Australian government? 

Mr Kovacevic: Around 1,500. 

Senator McALLISTER: How much does it cost on average to build one of these websites? There is probably 

a range— 

Ms O'Loughlin: How long is a piece of string. Very simple websites can be very cheap to build, but 

obviously some of the big service websites are actually just a portal into a very complex back-end system. So it 

would depend on what the website was. 

Senator McALLISTER: As you observed, it is unsurprising, given that that is the situation, that 50 per cent 

of people find it difficult to find their way into government information online. 

Ms O'Loughlin: Absolutely. 

Senator McALLISTER: What is going to happen to, I guess, manage or in some way control the 

proliferation of websites? 

Ms O'Loughlin: I think there are two parts to that. Part of the difficulty that people have in accessing services 

is the proliferation of websites, and we are working with departments and agencies on getting those down, but it is 



also about the style, language and tone of the content on those websites—around how impenetrable they are; how 

they are not clear about how you can get from A to B to find the information you need; they are not designed 

around user needs, they are designed around government department structures. So the content strategy will work 

with departments and agencies on both aspects of that: the range of websites they have, but also the content they 

produce for their websites, which needs to be much clearer and easier for people to use. 

Senator McALLISTER: I think you mentioned the digital investment office in your opening remarks. 

Ms O'Loughlin: Yes. 

Senator McALLISTER: Can you explain to me how this is different, or if it is different, from the Program 

Management Office, which Assistant Minister Taylor announced in October last year? 

Ms O'Loughlin: They are the same thing. 

Senator McALLISTER: Right. So he announced it twice, but with a different name? 

Ms O'Loughlin: No, we were a bit concerned that the initials PMO have different meanings for departments 

and agencies. We wanted to have a name that was clearly distinguishable from PMO, so we named it the Digital 

Investment Management Office, but it is the Program Management Office, as announced by the assistant minister. 

Senator McALLISTER: But he announced it twice. 

Ms O'Loughlin: He announced in his speech back in October that there was going to be a Program 

Management Office, and now he is just using the name that we created for that Program Management Office. 

Senator McALLISTER: It is good to have that clear. Back in October, I think Assistant Minister Taylor 

described the team as a 'powerful new program management office that will track ICT and digital projects across 

the whole of government, stepping in to remediate where things are not working'. I think that is what he said on 

13 October. But, generally, is that the overall mission of this team? 

Ms O'Loughlin: Yes. The team has been charged with a number of roles. As I mentioned at the outset, it has 

been charged to immediately review all significant ICT and digital projects across government, to give 

government a greater assurance of what is the whole portfolio of projects that are happening across government, 

which we do not have a handle on now; how much is being expended; what is the risk around each of those 

projects; and what are they going to deliver. But, also, where we do have expertise in the DTA, where projects 

perhaps are having issues, in the future we will be able to build up that capability to either assist directly or to 

source, from our own knowledge of networks within industry and within other departments, specialised expertise 

that may be able to assist. 

Senator McALLISTER: Problems—IT issues—that have actually been quite prominent in recent months 

have been: the census; the Centrelink robo-debt debacle; the repeated crashing of the ATO website; and problems 

with the CSA's IT systems. In any of those instances has your organisation stepped in to remediate where things 

are not working? 

Ms O'Loughlin: The role of the new Program Management Office was announced in October. We stood up 

the initial team for that in late December. We were not previously involved in any of those particular projects that 

you have mentioned. The only thing I would add is that, while we were not involved in the Centrelink project, we 

did do some work in late January on the request of DHS to work with them on some short-term user design 

expertise to add to their team and to assist with the automated debt calculator project. So that has been our 

involvement to date. But, of course, following the government's announcement, we will be building a much more 

expert office in the DTA that can provide both assurance to the government and assistance to those projects when 

they need it. The government will also have much greater oversight of the progress by departments and agencies 

of each of those ICT projects and how it can assure that they will be delivered. 

Senator McALLISTER: Okay. You stood up the unit. You are building expertise. Have you got a list of 

projects or agencies where you do seek to engage where you do see problems? I have got a very big list of 

agencies where I think there are problems, and they include the ATO, Centrelink, the ABS and the child support 

ICT upgrade. Are these on your list of organisations to engage with in this remedial mandate? 

Ms O'Loughlin: Following the assistant minister's announcement on 16 February, we are going through a 

very extensive data collection process with departments and agencies to identify all projects above $10 million, 

the risks involved, the expected time frame and deliverables. That will be the first time that the DTA and, indeed, 

the government will have a comprehensive view of all significant IT projects and some understanding of where 

the risks are. So, to answer your question: I do not have a list at the moment. We will have projects that we have 

either seen reported in the process or are aware of internally, but this process of coming up with a comprehensive 

list for government will be the first time that we will have that insight. 



Senator McALLISTER: There is a litany of quite public failures in terms of digital transformation. Are you 

concerned that there is a loss of faith in the digital transformation process? Is that something that your office is 

seeking to address? 

Ms O'Loughlin: From my discussions with departments and agencies over the last four months, I would say 

that there is a very strong commitment by all departments and agencies to the digital transformation agenda. I 

think there are digital projects that have gone very well. There are also ICT projects that have gone very well. 

Unfortunately, they of course tend to get overshadowed by the ones that fail badly. I think, though, that the new 

role of the DTA can both continue the work that we have done on working with departments and agencies to 

actually look at how they can transform their services so they are much more user centred but also to make sure 

that we are really getting much more information into this agency and into the government about where risks arise 

and how we can fix problems as they come to the fore. That is our aspiration. 

I am not quite sure that—I think that— 

Senator McALLISTER: I suppose I am interested in what the public thinks rather than what your internal 

clients think. 

Ms O'Loughlin: Exactly. We continue to work with the public around user centred design, and that for us is a 

core way of talking to the public and users about what they are looking for in government services. We are not 

finding any push back when we talk to people about that, but, of course, as big IT projects in government fail, you 

will get significant reputation bleed. 

Senator McALLISTER: You have made some public remarks about ensuring that the PMO is based on a 

cooperative approach to the development of reporting and performance frameworks. Does that reflect that there 

has previously been some difficulty in securing cooperation with agencies? 

Ms O'Loughlin: My comments were more around talking to department agencies about the role of the 

Program Management Office. It was an acceptance that many of those large agencies already have program 

management offices, which goes back to the comment I made earlier about the shorthand of calling things a PMO. 

What we wanted to make sure of when working with those agencies was more that in this new role we did not 

duplicate what already existed within government and that in developing our reporting frameworks we were using 

what they had already developed as a framework for what we would do for our own reporting. So it was more 

reflective of working with them around that and also an acceptance, as I mentioned earlier, that those agencies are 

actually responsible—in many cases solely responsible—for the delivery of their ICT projects and that we need to 

work with them to understand those projects. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is it the case though that previously there had been difficulties in securing 

cooperation from line agencies for the DTA? I ask because I am interested to know whether or not there has 

needed to be intervention, say, from the Prime Minister, to secure cooperation and whether there has been 

resistance to cooperation from government agencies. 

Ms O'Loughlin: I think it comes down to the quite different roles of the former agency. The DTO was there 

to be a disruptor, to think about things differently, to go into agencies and challenge them. 

Senator McALLISTER: Is that not your role? 

Ms O'Loughlin: Sorry? 

Senator McALLISTER: That is not your role? 

Ms O'Loughlin: It was a confined role to transforming government digital services and service delivery. It 

was quite a different role to what I see as my role and the broader role of the organisation. Of course when you 

are going in and trying to disrupt people you get push back. DTO did quite a considerable amount of work, really 

good work, with departments and agencies around things like exemplar projects, of which they delivered any 

number. I expect the experience was varied, but in the time I have been in this role I have found strong 

cooperation across departments and agencies. 

Senator McALLISTER: Has the Prime Minister previously written to departments asking them to cooperate 

with the DTO? 

Ms O'Loughlin: I am not aware of that. 

Dr Kennedy: I am not aware of that. But we will take it on notice of course. 

Senator McALLISTER: Dr Kennedy, if he had, I would like to obtain a copy of that letter. I understand you 

will need to give consideration to whether that is appropriate. If you could take that on notice I would appreciate 

it. 



Dr Kennedy: Yes. I am not aware of whether such a letter exists but I am happy to take it on notice. 

Senator McALLISTER: Just a final question, Ms O'Loughlin. Do you think there is any further need for 

disruption? You say there was an organisation tasked with disrupting. You say you do not think that is the role of 

your organisation. 

Ms O'Loughlin: I said I did not think it was my role. In the collation of the DTA we have kept that core 

technology user centred design delivery aspect, which was so important in the DTO, of challenging departments 

and agencies to think differently and change the way they develop and deliver government services. We still have 

that role but we also have an expanded role around procurement, assurance, policy and strategy. For me, that 

creates a slightly different role for this position. The government has committed to filling the Chief Digital 

Officer position that is currently vacant that Mr Shetler was in, and I would expect that that position would 

continue that advocacy, evangelistic—if you want to call it that—and disruptive role. 

CHAIR: We will now move to the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. 

Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security 

[10:44] 

CHAIR: I welcome the Hon. Margaret Stone, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and the 

Assistant Inspector-General, Mr Jake Blight. Ms Stone, do you wish to make an opening statement? 

Ms Stone: Just a very short one. 

CHAIR: Please. 

Ms Stone: 1 February 2017 marked 30 years since the commencement of the Inspector-General of 

Intelligence and Security Act. For three decades, the Inspector-General's office has been providing independent 

oversight of the activities of Australia's intelligence and security agencies. I am the seventh Inspector-General to 

have the privilege and responsibility of this office, the purpose of which is to provide assurances to ministers, the 

parliament and the public that intelligence and security matters are subject to independent scrutiny by this office 

to ensure that agencies operate legally, with propriety and consistently with human rights. There have been 

fundamental and far-reaching changes to the security environment in the last 30 years, as well as significant 

changes to the legal framework within which the intelligence agencies operate. My office has also grown and 

changed in that time. Throughout this period, the most important—indeed, the essential—attribute of the Office of 

the Inspector-General has been its independence. For 30 years, irrespective of political party, governments and 

ministers have respected and supported that independence. It is timely that, in our 30th year, I should put on 

record our appreciation of that support. 

Senator XENOPHON: Welcome back, Ms Stone, and sorry it is so late. I will ask you a series of questions. 

Because of time constraints, I may have to put some of them on notice. 

Ms Stone: Certainly. 

Senator XENOPHON: How do you distinguish between ASIS operations conducted for the economic 

wellbeing of Australia versus the wellbeing of any particular corporate entity? I am happy for you to take that on 

notice. 

Ms Stone: It might be a good idea to add to it on notice, but it is important perhaps to make the basic point 

that, if we examine activities of ASIS and they fall within one or other of its functions, then the distinction that 

you are referring to may not arise. 

Senator XENOPHON: I might put some extra questions on notice in relation to that. Can you confirm if, 

under Australia's system of government and public service conventions, an incoming government is not told about 

the intelligence operations authorised by its predecessors? 

Ms Stone: That is not within my jurisdiction. 

Senator XENOPHON: You do not see it as being relevant in any way? 

Ms Stone: You are asking me whether an incoming government is briefed about the intelligence activities 

authorised by the former government. 

Senator XENOPHON: Yes. 

Ms Stone: I would expect that to be a briefing given by the public service or the intelligence agencies. 

Certainly I have never been asked for a briefing on that sort of issue. 

Senator Brandis: Could I add a comment, please, Senator Xenophon. The agencies, although subject to 

accountability obligations, do operate autonomously. I recall that when I became the attorney responsible for 

ASIO there were, naturally, ongoing matters on which I was briefed. That was not a breach of any convention 



about the affairs of the previous government not being disclosed to an incoming government. It was merely a 

matter of the continuity of the work of independent agencies. 

Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps this goes to you, Attorney, or to Ms Stone. For instance, is it the case that 

intelligence operations authorised by the National Security Committee of Cabinet are confidential to the 

government that authorised them, and access to them by succeeding governments is not sought and, if sought, not 

given except with the approval of the current leader of the relevant political party? 

Senator Brandis: For a start, the agencies operate, as I said, subject to accountability obligations, in an 

autonomous way. There are some aspects of their operation that require ministerial authorisation. That is the case 

of ASIO and ASIS. Ms Stone may know more than me, but, and I say this with great respect, Senator Xenophon, I 

think you quite misconceived the hierarchy—the National Security Committee of cabinet, for example, in my 

experience has never said to an intelligence agency, 'Go and do this.' 

Senator XENOPHON: No, I am not suggesting that, but if they are aware of— 

Ms Stone: Perhaps if I gave a little bit more information about how we go about our business, it might 

elucidate this. Our job is to oversee the activities of intelligence agencies. Take ASIS. We have regular 

inspections, actually at each of the agencies. What we do in those inspections varies according to the agency, and 

from time to time, and it depends on the choices we make about what to investigate. When we investigate 

something, one of the things we will be looking at is whether it has been properly authorised. Now, if for instance 

an activity had been authorised—a ministerial authorisation given for a particular activity—and there happened to 

be a change of government in the course of that, then I do not think we would be coming to say, 'Does the present 

government approve?' because what we have is a properly authorised activity. That is what we are concerned 

about. 

Senator XENOPHON: So the act of authorisation is itself conclusive. Is that what you are saying? 

Ms Stone: I am not sure what you mean by conclusive, but it is valid. If we have a valid authorisation so that 

we can look at that and say, 'This agency was authorised to carry out this activity,' and that activity, within the 

framework of the authorisation, is still being carried on appropriately, then we would not be saying, 'Oh well, we 

had better check that it is authorised by this government.' So the authorisation does not lapse on change of 

government or change of minister. 

Senator XENOPHON: You do not look behind the authorisation to see if it complied with the act, if you 

have a complaint? 

Ms Stone: Absolutely. We would look at the request that has made for a ministerial authorisation and we 

would look at the grounds on which the argument is made for the authorisation. If they did not seem coherent and 

comprehensive we would ask questions. We might ask, 'You stated this proposition to the minister; where is the 

intelligence that supports that?' We might look at that raw intelligence and say, 'We don't see how you get from 

this point to this point.' So, absolutely. But once we have satisfied ourselves that the authorisation, when made, 

was valid, and continues according to its own terms, we do not go back because there has been a change of 

government. 

Senator XENOPHON: In the 30 years since the operation of the act, and thank you for reminding me that it 

is the 30th anniversary—I am not sure if there was a cake at your offices! 

Ms Stone: It is a year-long event! 

Senator Brandis: If there had been a cake we would not tell you! 

Ms Stone: Our secret is safe, Senator Brandis! 

Senator XENOPHON: In the 30 years—cake or no cake!—that IGIS has been operating, to your knowledge 

has IGIS ever looked behind any particular intelligence operation to see whether or not its authorisation was 

appropriate or proper. 

Ms Stone: Absolutely—of course—that is what we do all the time. 

Senator XENOPHON: For instance, in terms of the—for want of a better term—the East Timor spying case, 

or the case involving the bugging of the East Timorese cabinet room— 

Ms Stone: The allegation. 

Senator XENOPHON: The allegation. Can you confirm whether any ASIS assets were diverted from ASIS's 

role in terms of the war against terror, particularly Jamia Islamia, in Indonesia— 

Ms Stone: Senator Xenophon, we have been over this ground a number of times. I am sure it will not surprise 

you that my comment in relation to whether any complaint was ever made about such an allegation remains the 



same as it was and as my predecessor's was—and that is that no such complaint was ever made to our office. If 

you are asking me whether, in the course of our regular inspections, we came across any such activity, it would 

not be appropriate for me to speak in specifics about it. It is not appropriate for me to speak in specifics about any 

of the activities of ASIS, including that one—if, in fact, there was such. 

Senator XENOPHON: No complaint has been made about that particular operation or set of allegations? 

Ms Stone: No. 

Senator XENOPHON: Nothing from Mr Collaery? If there had been, you would not be able to tell us much 

about it anyway. 

Ms Stone: If you referred back to what I said in the last Senate estimates or to what Dr Vivienne Thom, then 

in my role, said in the Senate estimates before that, you would know that I have searched our records and that Dr 

Thom searched our records and that we have no record of any such complaint being made. 

Senator XENOPHON: I will not traverse that any further at this stage. 

Ms Stone: For the records, I will add one further point: our records are complete and comprehensive. I am 

satisfied that, if such a complaint had been made, there would be a record of it. 

Senator XENOPHON: Are you able to confirm that foreign ministers Stephen Smith, Kevin Rudd and Bob 

Carr were not read into the ASIS files—in other words, they were not advised about the espionage operations 

against East Timor allegedly ordered by the previous foreign minister? 

Ms Stone: I have no information on that. I think it would be inappropriate for me to answer, but I can take that 

on notice and give some consideration to what I could say about briefing previous prime ministers—not about 

that particular allegation but in general. I think I have made it clear in a number of forums that we are very happy 

to brief ministers about the policies and procedures of our office at any time—and I urge ministers who are 

interested to ask us to come and give that briefing. That will not give specifics of a particular operation, but I 

think it would materially contribute to an understanding of how we work and why I say that our work is very 

effective. 

Senator XENOPHON: I will read in some questions to be taken on notice. Can you advise how Australia's 

system of oversight compares with those of our allies? Specifically, who in the USA would be your counterpart? 

Who would it be in Canada, New Zealand or the UK? Further, what powers do you not have that your 

counterparts may have? Conversely, if there are powers that you have that your counterparts do not have, that 

would be of interest. Do you meet formally or informally with your counterparts in other countries? Finally, going 

back to the question of the economic wellbeing issue under section 11(1) of the Intelligence Services Act: if a 

potential ASIS operation is considered to advance the economic wellbeing of an Australian owned, or majority 

Australian owned, firm, can that be a sufficient criterion to also deem it to be in the interests of the economic 

wellbeing of Australia in the context of section 11, subsection (1), of the Intelligence Services Act? 

Ms Stone: I will take all those questions on notice. 

Senator McALLISTER: Ms Stone, we have had a number of conversations in this forum about staffing and 

the level of resources needed by your office. You have indicated two issues—one around turnover, I think, and 

one around the time that it takes for security clearances to be processed and the impact that has on recruitment. 

Have there been any improvements to the time frames around security clearances? 

Ms Stone: I was about to say I am so glad you asked me that question, because at the moment we are in a very 

good position with staffing. But to address your specific question: no, I do not think the time taken for clearance 

has varied very much, but we were able to recruit just before Christmas. In a round we did several persons who do 

have the relevant clearance and were able to get some secondees to cover the period while a couple of appointees 

are waiting for clearance. So we are feeling fairly happy with our staffing at the moment. 

Senator McALLISTER: I think at the last time we spoke you had 14 ongoing employees. How many staff 

are currently employed? 

Ms Stone: We have 16 people. Two or three of them are part time. 

Mr Blight: Three are part time. Two are secondees. 

Ms Stone: Three are part time and two are secondees. 

Senator McALLISTER: But the two secondees are counted in the 16? 

Ms Stone: Yes. So we have 16— 

Senator McALLISTER: Staff in place. 

Ms Stone: We have 16 people. Of those 16— 



Senator McALLISTER: Three work part time. 

Ms Stone: Three are part time and two are not permanent—that is, they are secondees from other agencies but 

they have the clearance we need and, hopefully, before they need to go back to their home agency, we will have 

some clearances through for the people we have actually offered permanent appointment to. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Stone. Thank you, Mr Blight. It being 11 pm, that concludes the committee's hearing 

for today. I would like to thank the President, ministers and officers who have given evidence to the committee 

today. I would also like to thank Hansard, broadcasting and the secretariat for their assistance. I now declare this 

meeting of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee adjourned until tomorrow, when 

we will examine the Finance portfolio. 

Committee adjourned at 23:01

SENATE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?