Senate Economics Legislation Committee, , 6:02:14 to 6:38:53
Officials explain budget reprioritizations and the establishment of the Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute.
Topics: Government spending, Artificial intelligence, Grants administration
Speakers: Hon Matthew Canavan, Meghan Quinn PSM, Derek Stiller, Speaker 27, Hon Tim Ayres, Interjection, Joanna Stone, Lisa Darmanin
>> we'll come back to that. Um uh All right. So, we might uh just move on to some other issues. Um just going to your additional estimate statement. uh I'm looking at just where I wanted to start. Table 1.1 on page 18 of the department's additional estimates. Just trying to understand the uh in the proposed additional estimates column there's a $60 billion um sorry $60 million uh departmental appropriation change. What's uh what's that change?
>> the um uh just confirming it was table 1.1 on page 19.
>> Yep.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, 18. I've gotage might spread over, but I'm looking at page 18. >> I think table 1.1 might continue on on the on the printed document, page 18.
>> Yeah. So, that that's money that's come through for the department uh following the um decisions of my EFO.
>> Right. So, how's that broken down then?
The 60 million. Uh yeah, I'll just just see if uh my acting GC wants to come to the table cuz she's got a lot more detail on numbers than I do. Um but there are a range of measures obviously that uh the government announced as part of that Mayifo package. >> Uh and the departmental components of that is what that 60 odd is referencing. Uh we can work that through with you if you would like. if it's useful, just while um Miss Stone brings up her computer, Senator um these will be component parts that uh referenced in the the my EO statement. um which I think from D's perspective
>> You got any info?
>> Included funding for things like uh the election commitments that were made on the anti-dumping commission. Um just see if Miss Stone's got her numbers up yet. >> Okay. >> So 5 million for example for the anti-dumping commission was in that that
>> So it does include Sorry, excuse me. uh Joanna Stone, general manager within CFO division. Um it includes uh several things. So it's the measures that were approved through the myo process as well as a range of uh movement of funds that that are also disclosed in the pace documents. So would cover um so the specific measures would be supporting out Australia's heavy industry transition, building a future made in Australia um and the measures under that as well as some of the um the figures there like >> um I
>> because that's just for 2526 is it
>> that's just for 2526 for the for the departmental component.
>> Okay. Have you got the numbers for those big ones? The heavy industry.
>> Yeah. Table 1.3 kind of breaks it down a bit more detail in terms of the additional estimates. So it's around 10 million for the supporting Australia's heavy industrial
>> Isn't that a movement table though? >> 1.3
>> table 1.2 would show you
>> 1.2. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Would show you by department. >> Yeah. If you look at that shows both the administered the departmental component. The number you referred to is only the departmental component.
>> Yeah. Okay. So so table 1.2 two doesn't quite add up to the 60 million.
>> No, because there's also movement funds that are included in it. So that's what's in the additional table. Yeah.
>> All right. So you don't have those that break up the 60 mil for me.
>> Not not in one table. It doesn't show by
that can. >> What's the external revenue? What's section 74 external revenue?
>> So that's any revenue that we have for our cost recovery arrangements. So where we have cost recovery for several um actors across the organization.
>> senator we do cost recovery work uh we run the business grants hub on behalf of other departments the national measurement which um the secretary was talking about before do work on behalf of a range of uh industry bodies and other government departments >> uh we also do um which I think comes under that category uh payroll work on behalf of other government departments
>> so why has that gone up by 13.5 million from PEO to my >> Well, budget. You're you're sorry. You're >> I'm in the budget. I'm in the mifo. Usually they're comparing to PIO, but you're comparing to budget. Okay.
>> So, we make estimates at the beginning of the year on what the potential for some of that is, uh, Senator. But certainly, um, through the course of, for example, grants work, um, once decisions are made on those grants, obviously the revenue stream is then locked in and we can actually update once we know what, um, the administered funding we're getting for that part is is actually going to be.
>> Okay. We also have some demand driven aspects. So Quicon fees for example, if we get a surge in people,
>> it's just a pretty big one. That's all I noticed. It's fairly in 6 months gone up by uh 15% or so. So that's fair change. Um okay. All right. Uh the CSRO funding in that is that the same table? Yeah, it's still in table 1.1, but it's a few uh numbers down page 19. Few pages down. Um is that the extra funding that was >> That was announced before my EPO, was it? Okay. Uh, we can come to that later, I suppose. I noticed your overall staffing levels are dropping. >> Was that planned or is that a change?
>> so the actual PBS numbers have gone up from budget to in the additional estimates for the department uh for for the estimates for
>> Oh, sorry. I suppose I'm comparing they're going down from year to year.
>> Yes.
>> Yes. But up in 2526 relative to what we had in budget
>> relative to the budget. I don't have that budget figure with me. So that's it was sort of asking but has that so why are they going down
>> uh overall they're going down mostly related to terminating measures so measures that were funded for specific activity and those that activities concluded and the reduction in staff would follow
>> does that contribute to your efficiency dividend
>> uh so uh mostly it's related to specific measures rolling uh over um
>> so that doesn't count to an efficiency dividend because it was already in the baseline or
>> uh so the efficiency dividends uh to the extent that there's targeted aspect there goes to the to the general appropriation and then on top of that we have new policy proposals that may have um a specific life on them once the activity that's being funded ceases. Uh and so we as a department manage both those things together to deliver the priorities of the government.
>> Okay. Have you received any correspondence from the finance department or the minister for finance around the need for a higher efficiency dividend
>> budget? Decisions around um central government savings or efficiencies as part of the overall budget process. So they come through the expenditure review committee mechanisms um and they're a decision of government and then we get informed of uh those decisions and we we activate them within our accounting systems.
>> Okay. I was asking have you received any correspondence any communication from the finance department or the finance minister's office about efficiency dividends for the budget coming?
>> So to the extent there were any in myo we would have been told about them and we they would be
>> I'm talking about the budget coming the budget coming.
>> Uh so so we're we're in the middle of a budget process and it's very early stages of budget process. Do
>> are you are you doing any planning on the need for redundancies to meet efficiency dividends over the next year?
Uh so we we always uh look at our um available financing and our staffing profile and we work through the the need to match those two. Staffing is a big part of our cost base. Uh and we do manage to the requirements.
>> It wasn't quite my question. I'm sure you do manage it, but have you done any planning or uh any any uh analysis on whether you will need uh voluntary or otherwise redundancies uh to meet uh your budget the next year? So we we have
a cycle of business planning within the department that works uh typically on a six-month cycle. Uh so we do a the start of um before the start of a financial year, we do analysis on what our obligations and priorities are uh and match resources to to needs uh and then we have an update in the in the in the midyear uh process as well. So we do that on a regular basis. So the short answer is we are always doing that.
>> All right. Not ruling it out. Okay. Um table 1.2 two uh go to that one on page 21 uh there's um there's a line industry science and resources rep prioritization and I if I'm reading that right that means a reduction in funding for the department is it across that line what is that
>> uh senator those are uh changes to measures that were outlined in the government's budget uh that are being used to then fund other things
>> are they going to other departments are
they >> yeah I can point you to um page 266 of the um PIO section of the myo announcement and it talks about
>> hang on sorry just for 266 of myo is it or >> right >> 266 of my
>> they related to the industry growth program uh a movement um of the uncommitted funding on the modern manufacturing initiative >> uh and then there was um 12.3 million uh by reducing the global science and technology diplom primacy fund and uh uncommitted funding of
>> is that in your portfolio? The global science technology
>> it yes
>> that's in program 1.2 two then
>> uh I'll just double check. I think so.
Yes. >> Okay. All right. Come back to that. So you haven't lost those from the department then? Are they because they're all are they just rep prioritizing within the department?
>> Uh so so most of those elements are administrative funds. uh and at the I I looking at the kind of list I'm reasonably certain there uh there might be some knock-on implications for staffing but most of those were administered funds.
>> Okay. Which ones weren't
>> uh so there might be depending on um how the saving is implemented uh the industry growth program uh is supported by uh contractors and and staff. Um but we're working through the details of of what that um savings measure kind of means for the program. Uh the other ones are all administered funding.
>> Okay. Um I just wanted to go to the myo measures um and I'm looking at my info on page 268. This is the heavy industry transformation measure. um particularly uh in at the at after the description of the [clears throat] individual facilities receiving these funds, there is a line that says partial funding for this measure will be held in the contingency reserve pending the outcomes of a review of market conditions for Glen Corors Mount Isaac copper smelter and townsville copper refinery. So does that mean that the the the the cost of maintaining the smelter and refinery there the 301 million uh is it could be more uh than what's announced.
Uh so so happy to um the the the team looking at that particular uh activity will be here under 1.1 um but the structure of that arrangement with the Queensland government uh joint and then with the um Glenor has a series of milestones in gates and activities and so uh that the the way we manage that is to uh have the appropriation um and some it depends a bit on the conditions whether it's in the contingency reserve or whether it's appropriation in advance. So, sort of a technical aspect of what goes on books and what stays in the central books,
>> right? But the fact you put some funds in the contingency reserve and I'm so I'm asking a more corporate financial question here. Uh that's that does indicate there's a risk it could be more >> Why would you put something in the
contingency? happy to take it on notice because um the to the extent that things are usually put in the contingency reserve is because there's not been a formal decision of government or it's a commercial incompetence or there's a stage gate to to be evaluated before the main
>> but you wouldn't put something in the contingency reserve if there was no risk of uh it being needed would you
>> well it depends on the the kind of circumstances I'm happy to take
>> of course it does that's why it's a contingency
>> yeah that's right [laughter] so happy to take it on notice of specific details of of what the link link is to the contingency reserve for those measures.
>> Okay. Uh how much is it in the contingency reserve?
>> Uh I don't have that information. Uh I don't know that my team will, but I'm happy to take it on notice and see whether there's anything.
>> All right. And none of
>> it's usually not revealed what's in the contingency.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um none of uh the funding here uh for this heavy industry um announcement measure uh uh is earmarked
>> I am not sure about the technicality of that because I'd have to check that the team the team who we're dealing with it will be able to answer that question.
>> All right. And um the the uh it does also say here under this measure that uh it will be partially fund the costs will be partially met from a rep prioritization funding of the October budget measure in 20223 total supporting Australian industry that that that particular measure included funding for a range of facilities including nearstar. Oh, and and the amount to Near and October 22 23 budget was 50 million. Was all of that 50 million provided to Near?
>> I think we'd have to check. We'd have to check that, Senator. Yeah.
>> But aren't you guys who's the chief financial officer? Wouldn't you know this 50 million
>> chief financial officer is actually unwell today. So that's why I've got one of my team here with me. So it's it's um unfortunate but you know I'm just being
>> so no one's got tabs on whether that 50
million that right. Yeah.
>> All right. I thought the finance team would know too but okay. All right. Okay. Um so how much of that um that uh that measure in in 22 23 has been rep
>> So we'll come to we'll come back to it. the team will be ready to answer these questions in 1.2.
uh, well, I'll sure if we're going to
get >> just just to clarify, is it the modern manufacturing initiative you're talking about?
>> No, it was a measure titled supporting Australian industry.
>> Sorry.
>> And that was in the 2223 budget. It's on page 155 of the 2223 budget paper 2. >> Uh, and it lists a range of facilities. uh it's a total of 135.5 million uh in that budget. Uh and so my simple question is how much of that 135 million has been rep prioritized? >> We'll have a better discussion. Okay. >> All right. Uh let me check. Sorry one thought there might have been another set of questions. Um I just wanted to get some clarity on the artificial intelligence one. It says the government will provide 225 million but seems to be there lots of different people involved in this. So how much of that is being spent in uh
>> So we'll have our artificial intelligence people here um later on. Um 2 point we got for the establishment of the artificial intelligence safety institute 29.8 eight over four years >> uh and then further ongoing um that's all within the establishment of the uh safety institute is within the
>> the 20 what is that 20
>> 29.8 eight over four years and then ongoing funding as well beyond the four
>> Which part of the I don't know if you've got the measure from uh from the from my info in front of you. It's on page 211. Uh what part of that is the 29 million from >> cuz it's like four dot points.
>> Yeah. I'm sorry I don't have the my info with in front of me.
>> I've got 266 which I think is what you're referring to but I'll just need to bring up the others. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I I've well I've got it's a cross portfolio measure artificial intelligence plan to the Australian public service. That's what I'm referring to. Is that what we're both referring to? >> Because the Department of Industry is not actually mentioned in these. But then I see in your additional estimates you seem to be getting funding from the AI plan.
>> Yes,
>> you are.
>> We are getting to 29.8
>> 29. But that's not quite indicated in my efo anywhere. But it is part of that
measure, is it? Oh, that the 29.8 senator is in the Mifa document. >> It's on 266.
>> Okay. So, it's a different measure. >> All right. I got it now. Thank you. >> So, this safety institute is this is this just for government use? I suppose I can ask that later but
>> uh so the team can give you a more wholesome answer but at a high level it is to analyze this the the safety aspects of the artificial intelligence engines and provide advice within
government. within government. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Um I'll just check but I might be done for corporate. Um well I might just just flag here. Um I want to ask some questions on the uh failed grant to Fordscq uh for their uh initiative at Gladston. Uh
>> so that is this set this part of estimate.
>> This is in corporate
>> uh because the grants hub who manages the recovery of grants monies is in corporate.
>> Right. Great. Lucky I flagged it. All right. I've got a few questions here. So all right. Um well first of all have we got the money back yet?
>> Uh Senator the department's received 20 20 million back from Portscq. Yes.
>> 20 million. I I believe I had it here. I thought it was around 44 million. Yep. 44.9. Was that the total amount?
>> Uh well, Senator, it might be worth me just um
>> Well, they rewarded a grant. I've got here in your own documents from FOI that the that FFI was awarded a grant of 44.946. >> How much was how much was actually provided to forsq?
>> If I can um ask my colleague to join me from Derek Stiller, our business grants hub. I just wonder whether it's useful just stepping through that grant because obviously government contributed component forsq contributed component so the total funding envelope I think was around the 100 millionish I think
>> government component as well right
>> in terms of forscu's grant itself so you were after the total funding
I've got as I say there's There's quite a few documents on FOI on this and they all flag uh that the Gladston FI project was awarded a grant of $44.9 uh million. Uh what I'm after is how much was actually provided to forsq under that grant.
>> Uh so Senator uh Derek Stella acting um head of division for the business grants hub. Uh so yes you're right that was the 44.9 million was the total value of the grant. So, forscu um received 33,79,500.
>> Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Um sorry, was it okay? That is it. Uh might just write that down. Sorry. Um 33.7 was
>> Yes. 33.7 million.
>> Round it up. Round just round numbers. Okay. Uh and and [clears throat] how much did you say has been repaid?
>> Uh 20.255 255 I think 700 if you want to be
>> is that is that a is that a final payment of negotiations finished
>> that that is the requirement we have under the grant agreement for forc to pay back and they have paid it back
>> right so we won't we won't get 13
>> the the remainder of that uh was spent on eligible expenditure under the grant agreement senator
>> right um how is eligible expenditure defined What does that mean?
>> Uh well, it's it's um stipulated in the grant agreement, but uh would include things like wages, for example, for parts of those projects that would have been funded. Uh but Mr. Stiller can expand on that if you'd like.
>> Yep, sure. Go for it.
>> Sure. Um yes, Senator. So, uh Fordscq under the grant agreement, um they needed to build a hydrogen electrolyer manufacturing facility and that was built. Um included within that um a fully automated production line was installed. Um some uh functional testing uh stations were installed as well as robotic clean rooms. So I guess what Mr. Mason's flagging is that we need to take into account the partial delivery that did occur under the grant agreement. Um and they were those things that I've articulated were eligible items for expenditure under the grant agreement. Um and so we've used the relevant clause under the grant agreement uh that's appropriate to use in this circumstance in relation to the repayment. Um given that partial delivery,
>> did the grant agreement define those
Uh yes, Senator, there was a range of um milestones or things that needed to be undertaken that were articulated in the grant agreement. Yes,
>> we don't have the grant agreement. Um well, now that it's complete, can we have a copy of the original agreement, please?
>> Um I'll take that on notice.
>> Thank you. I understood you couldn't provide it while negotiations were continuing, but that's done now. So I don't see
>> sometimes it contains commercial
>> stuff of course. Of course I do have though a um I think the template or draft agreement that was provided uh uh um on the uh with the guidelines I think for the grants originally. There only seemed to be though one section which dealt with repayment that was section 11 just 11 as a total and it's all very vague um that if it all it says is if any amount of the grant has been spent other than in accordance with this agreement or is additional requirement for the activity then the commonwealth by may by written notice require the grantee ra doesn't really say anything about eligible expenditure or anything like that so was the final agreement did it have more provisions around repayment than the the uh draft contract had.
>> So, sorry, sorry. Um, Senator, the um draft sorry, the final grant agreement had a designated use provision, >> right? Um and under that that that articulates uh through a a formula uh what uh money needs to be returned to the government uh in situations where the uh assets built um uh and and uh brought into being through the grant process if they're not used on um uh used for the desired purpose or the specified purpose. So used for other purposes, not used at all or sold, those sorts of circumstances. Okay. That's where that clause comes into.
>> That's where you triggered it. >> Right. But this this facility to my knowledge was certainly less than a year. May have been seven or eight months open. So why why would we only get 2/3 of the money back if they only ran it for, you know, seven or eight months? I mean, they used it, but not sure exactly what benefit Australia got out of it at all. So, why why are we only getting 2/3 back?
>> So, Senator, that's where we need to adhere to the requirements under that designated use period. And that period was for 5 years. Senator, um there's a formula that applies as to how much um needs to be repaid to the government based on how long the assets brought into being during that grant period.
>> So it's not a linear, it's not a that formula. So cuz from my rough sums here, a proportionate pro rata situation, if it was 5 years, even if I say a year, it was definitely under a year. Um that would only that's four fifths of the time they weren't operating. My rough sums would be that would be more like 24 $25 million not 20. So is it is there is there a nonlinear >> aspect to this?
>> Yeah, I think a non it wouldn't be uh advisable to consider a linear u sort of approach noting as Mr. Mason's already said uh um and I've indicated there were uh uh eligible and allowable expenditure that Fordscu undertook in accordance with the grant agreement. Um that needs to be recognized.
>> Did Forscu uh uh fully uh uh uh apply their rights under the agreement? They not did they not seek to be more generous than perhaps they were legally required to or they just did the bare
Senator, I don't know that it would be useful to comment on the negotiations through that process in this sort of a forum. Uh, however, um, the department engaged actively and regularly uh, through the process of um, settling the amount that was due.
>> Yeah, fair enough. I can understand that. I think Australians would like to know though given the promises that were made and Fordscu is a very wellto-do company. So they have taken off with $13 million of taxpayer funds and that's just the start of it. Let's not get started on the water billion dollar water pipeline, the hundreds of millions spent on transmission lines uh that yeah
>> back to your point about um linear nonlinear the the purpose of the modern manufacturer initiative of which this was a grant under that program um was was about supporting manufacturers to to to invest in capital and to scale up and create new uh apply new technology. So in that sense it would be quite sensible that it's um frontloaded. It wasn't
>> We've got a shed. We've got we've got a shed now in [clears throat] May I add too. >> Uh maybe something will come of it. Um I keep saying we might get a Bunnings or something but I'm not sure if it's in the right location. But um what happened to all the equipment inside the shed?
>> Yeah. So so the the the grant was related to um them setting up and so it wasn't for operational expenses and so
you can imagine front load but we do it to generate jobs and correct >> and production and they haven't done
that's a matter for
>> it's still their asset. So yeah. So we haven't been able to recoup presumably that maybe hopefully be able to solve for something. So uh Fordscq might do a lot better out of this than we expect. Um what about the Queensland government? Were you coordinating with them on these uh these issues or was it totally
Queensland government had their own agreements,
>> right? Okay. >> Y >> Okay. Um All right. Uh just let me check yeah, Minister, did you meet with Foriscu to discuss these issues?
>> Uh no, I did not meet with Fordscu to discuss these issues. I've met with Fortiscu um several occasions. Uh I can recall at one point uh we made a passing reference to it, but it was very clear that the discussions that they would engage in uh were with the department. I think that passing reference was because it was in the newspaper on that on or near that day. Um it's not something I've engaged with them about except to um indicate as you would imagine that everybody has to discharge their obligations here.
>> Right. Yeah. Cuz it would be inappropriate obviously to negotiate.
>> Well, it's just a level of detail, operational detail. I I don't know about inappropriate.
>> You did meet with them. You met with >> Senator But how many time I've got here in this disclosure you met with them on the 30th of May. You met days that was before. Sorry. Um yeah, >> I think you met with them the 29th of July. Is that right?
>> Yeah, I'm I'm sure. And if we can provide you with more information cuz I
think that was just days after the announcement
>> meetings with forc I mean I meet very regularly with um uh uh business proponents and leaders uh in the resources and manufacturing sector and Fordscq is just one of them.
Well, I'm sure you have to take this on notice, but on notice, could you tell us? So, I've got here from an FYI disclosure meeting. It says meeting request uh on the 29th of July from 9 to 9:30 here in Parliament House with Dino Toronto, the CEO. Um so, I suppose the question is did that meeting happen? The documentation here says meeting request. And uh and secondly, if you get on notice, when when did the request come in to your office for that meeting?
We'll we'll provide what we can on notice. Okay. >> I've certainly met with Mr. Atrando. Um whether that was that whether that meeting um happened at that time or not. I I I don't know. If we can provide you with more information, we will.
>> Now I might maybe I need to ask these here too. I also had some questions on the modern manufacturing issue and debts from that program. Is that is this the debt recovery team here?
>> So if it's relating to the finalization of grants, then this is the team. team if it's related to the project outcomes then it's the policy team
>> right so I' I've got this is also from another FYI document um uh modern manufacturing initiative this is for the end of 2425 so going back a little bit but it said that there are 14 active this note or I think it is a looks like a brief to the minister I think it says uh there's a note that there are 14 active MMI integration translation stream debts totaling 8.5 million duty grantee under spends uh is that something you're tackling as well?
>> We can we can look to answer some
>> Well, my main question is uh have you recovered that $18.5 million?
>> Uh, Senator, I'll I'll um swing to Mr. Stiller, but we're certainly actively recovering. Uh
>> well, maybe another way to put this is because presumably we have an update on this that rather than go back to that period, how many uh MMI debts do are still owed and what is the total of
>> So um Senator as at uh the end of January um this is for MMI translation and integration streams. Um >> 8.78 million >> um is are still debts that are outstanding.
>> Was that 8
>> 8.78
>> 8.78 million. Okay. How many projects or >> grants that relate to
There's six payment plans in place. Um, I might need to check that figure, Senator, but I can do that. >> Um, I don't have that information with me.
>> Take that on notice. >> Uh, it says here in this thing, it said underspends debts because of >> Can you explain what does that mean? Is that all is that 8.78 from under spends? And if so, what does it mean?
So the 8.78 certainly includes underspends and that's sort of a natural thing senator that um as we were talking about before in relation to fordscq as an example um 44.9 million was the award of the grant and then you think about how much money is received and then the budget that and and the expenditure that the actual grantee undertakes. So, it's not an unusual thing that um the grantee may well will uh successfully complete the activity. Uh turns out they didn't need the full amount that they received. Uh and so that can then be recouped via a debt process.
>> Okay. So, we don't I would have thought though we'd only pay on a milestone basis. So, we pay after they've completed something and then at that point you'd know how much they spent. But we don't do it that way.
>> It depends on the grant, Senator. So um some grants certainly true as you're saying there's milestones there's progress payments absolutely >> um some will occur where it's in a rears um others occur in advance noting that as the milestone and progress uh reporting occurs um that can provide us with the opportunity to reduce the final payments in recognition of how that uh entity is tracking Uh but of course there are instances where um despite good tracking and good pro progress reporting not all of the actual uh uh money provided is required.
>> Okay. All right. We've got here um in that in that particular brief I mentioned from 2425 uh there are five I think grants that were terminated. [clears throat] one of which I'm just bringing it back up this table cuz it's a very big table. So, I got to get the headers right. Uh, right. Yep. Okay. So, one of one of the five terminated projects which is shaded in sort of a ready orange was for Albam Allay and it was a grant for $4.8 million I think. Again, just let me double check on the headers. Yeah, the project was 9 something and the grant amount was 4.8. 8 uh 1.9 million was paid at least at this point uh and there was a amount remaining. So has that is that still outstanding Alba Maral the 1.9 million that was paid?
>> Um I'll need to take that on notice, Senator. Um probably I'll just add that um that particular grantee um sought a termination of the agreement. So
>> yeah that y
>> just so you're aware but yeah happy to take that on notice.
>> Okay. All right. >> Okay. All right. Um that might do me for corporate unless anyone
>> I'm sorry. Sorry, Senator. I've just received information that that debt from that grantee was repaid in September 2023.
>> Okay. Thank you. Cheers. All right. Okay. Um happy to move on then.
>> Yes. Okay. That was um hopefully some of your questions in other areas will have been covered there so we can pick up some time. Um that concludes our session for corporate and given it is now 3:40 um rather we might break 5 minutes early and then come back at um 3:55 um and do outcome one program 1.1 if people can be ready then. Thank you.