SENATE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 40 Senate Monday, 27 February 2017 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. FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Monday, 27 February 2017 Senate Page 41 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? Mr Stefanic: No. 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. 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 14 and 15: Page 10 Senate Monday, 27 February
Page 94 and 95:
Page 90 Senate Monday, 27 February
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?