SENATE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 10 Senate Monday, 27 February 2017 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. FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Monday, 27 February 2017 Senate Page 11 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 FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Page 1 and 2: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Proof Com
Page 3: SENATE FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTR
Page 6 and 7: Page 2 Senate Monday, 27 February 2
Page 16 and 17: Page 12 Senate Monday, 27 February
Page 64 and 65:
Page 60 Senate Monday, 27 February
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144:
show all

SENATE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?