Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Supplementary Budget Estimates October 2008
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government

Senator LUDLAM - I am just trying to get a sense, I suppose, of the budget allocations in your agency that is for road funding as opposed to rail funding, regional or metro.

Senator LUDLAM-I am not looking for too many decimal places, but just a rough idea. You mainly do road infrastructure or is there a lot of expertise and funding towards rail? What is the rough split? Is your work across the agency 80 per cent road, 20 per cent rail, 90-10, 50-50? How does it break down in terms of the funds that you administer?

Senator LUDLAM-I would appreciate that just to get a rough breakdown. Do you fund cycleways as part of your transport budget?

Answer:

In the 2008-09 Budget, $2037.4 million was provided for work on the National Land Transport Network. On 12 December 2008, the Prime Minister announced the Nation Building package, which included accelerating project starts for the construction of 14 national road projects. This will increase the allocations by an additional $711 million over 2008-09 and 2009-10.

$1022.3 million was previously budgeted to be spent on the National Rail Network directly by the Government and by the wholly government owned Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC). The Nation Building package announcement also provided for a $1.2 billion injection into the ARTC to finance investment in 17 rail construction and upgrade projects that will significantly increase Australia's rail network.

Cycleways are funded as part of projects and are considered as eligible project costs under national network projects. State governments consider the need for public cycleways in the design and delivery phase.

Senate Standing Committee on Economics

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio
Supplementary Budget Estimates 2008-09

23 October 2008

Question: SR-19

Topic: Communications with estate groups

Proof Hansard Page: E118

Senator Ludlam asked:

Senator LUDLAM-Communications from-I will give you the names in particular. There is a number of family groups, I am sure you would be aware, responsible for landscape under the Muckaty Land Trust-in particular, the Ngapa, the Millway, the Ngarrka, Wantagu and the Yapa Yapa family groups. I have probably mangled the pronunciation. Are you aware of representations within those groups?

Mr Davoren-Yes, we have prepared draft responses to some of those representations, Senator.

Senator LUDLAM-Can you identify for us, perhaps on notice-we will not put you through doing that now-those communications? I am not asking you to table the communications themselves, but the dates and the order in which they were received and transmitted.

Ms Taylor-We would have to take that on notice.

Hansard Page ECITA: 135 (21 Oct)

Senator Ludlam asked:
Senator LUDLAM-Has the company provided any advice to your office on the level of environmental assessment that their expansion plans might reasonably require under the EPBC Act?

Mr Hughes-I believe they have given an undertaking that they will be making a referral.

Senator LUDLAM-They will be making a referral under EPBC?

Mr Hughes-I understand that.

Senator LUDLAM-As far as you are aware. Minister, could I ask you to take a similar question on  notice on behalf of the minister.

Answers:
Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA) has not provided advice to the Minister's office on the level of environmental assessment that their expansion plans might reasonably require under the EPBC Act.

Topic: Funding from Radio National culling
Senator Ludlam asked:

Is the funding from culling Radio National's excellent innovative programming being reallocated to online programme needs?

Answer:

There has been no ‘cull' of Radio National's specialist or innovative programming. The changes to the line-up will enable reallocation of four positions to strengthen Radio National's online production.

Senator Ludlam asked:
1) Regarding the proposals for the lifting/heightening of the tailings dam that were discussed in previous Estimates hearings, what assessment was undertaken regarding the heightening of the tailings dams at Ranger?  What did the assessment identify as potential risks and impacts?  What steps have been taken to address these?

2) What is the extent of social impact monitoring that OSS is currently undertaking in the Alligator Rivers region?

3) Is the OSS aware of any other social impact modelling undertaken in the Alligator Rivers region, with particular regard to the social impacts of past or present uranium mining?

4) What advice has OSS provided government following the findings of the 2003 Senate Inquiry into uranium mining?  Have OSS or ERA practices changed significantly since this inquiry?

5) Regarding the expansion of the planned expansion of the Ranger site, has the OSS provided any advice to the Minister on the level of environmental assessment that the expansion plans might reasonably require under the EPBC Act?

6) If there is no advice, why has the OSS not acted on the public information regarding Ranger's expansion?

7) If there is advice, has the OSS been pro-active in making certain that this environmental assessment is undertaken well in advance of the proposed expansion to ensure high quality community consultation and therefore informed government decision making?