Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 8:06:54 to 8:57:39
Funding for Pacific sports diplomacy (NRL deal), ODA procurement integrity, and COP31 hosting preparations.
Topics: Pacific relations, Procurement, COP31
Speakers: Jamie Isbister, Barbara Pocock, Charlotte Blundell, Natalie Cohen, Dean Smith, Elizabeth Peak, Jessica Collins, Raff Ciccone, Speaker 20, Speaker 27, Speaker 34
>> Uh Senator Collins I'll give you the
call. >> I'd like to ask about the Pacific Pathways NRL deal please. Thank you. Just uh can I get just a quick update on the dispersed funds for the uh Pacific Pathways section of the
>> Um Senator Collins, Charlotte Blundell, First Assistant Secretary, Pacific Infrastructure and Economic uh Division. Uh the answer is 3.1 million.
And what's that gone to
>> to the support the Pacific Championships in particular um games that were played
>> Okay. 3 3.1 million for the games.
>> 3.1 million towards the championships.
>> So So what exactly did that pay for?
>> Um I I might have to take it on notice. I don't have the grant funding agreement with me, but there was um yeah, I'm I'm not 100% sure, so I don't want to mislead you. And there were some activities in Tonga as well that were supported. So, I can come back to you.
>> That would be terrific because that does sound quite a lot of money for a um a >> Yeah. Uh, I also asked on notice at the last estimates um if I could get some details of the Pacific Pathways uh proposal before the deal was announced. I haven't received that yet. Do you have
>> So on the design for the for the pathways program, Senator Collins?
>> No, I I can read it for you, but I'm just going to truncate it because we're short on time. Sure. Um but it was whether I can get on notice proposal from the Pacific Island countries. So Fiji, Tonga and Samoa on the rugby league Pacific pathways and any correspondence and consultations that happened before the PNG NRL deal was announced on 12th of December. So there was the announcement on 12th of December about the NRL deal that included the Pacific Pathways. Um, and I was just wondering if we could get uh well I I asked at the time for the details on consultations from Fiji Samar and Tonga before the deal was announced. >> Do you have do you have that at hand
>> I'm happy happy to explain it uh senator. So um there's a long long-standing um interest in the pathways development program. The four countries that are participating are the four countries that participate in the international competitions and in our um Pacific Oports Activities League for life. So they they've been the partners um uh for us and for Australian Rugby League and New South Wales and Queensland Rugby League for a long time. Um but this investment including the pathways program was the driving force was really Prime Minister Morappe and I think I've explained before um of that that um he he engaged strongly over a period of time including um writing letters. Um ultimately what uh DEFAT received was a formal written proposal and it's normal for us with the sports programs to receive that from the Australian um entity that's going to receive the funding um who need to demonstrate the the um engagement they've had with the Pacific uh NSOS and stakeholders. But we also consulted during that period of negotiation. And since I think I've stated before that uh this time last year, the Australian Rugby League Commission and DEFAT officials went to all four countries and undertook consultations with over 250 people. Um and those conversations are ongoing as the the the um final design is completed and we start to move forward into scaled up activity. Uh we've also um had um messages of support including to the foreign minister from all of the leaders of the countries that
If I may just add one uh comment, Elizabeth Peak, head of the Office of the Pacific, um Senator, often these ideas and proposals evolve over time. And as we were looking back on the the history, we saw a a proposal not dissimilar that came into uh the office of the Pacific when it was first established um early in 2019 2020 from uh from those four countries from those uh rugby league associations. And so that demand has been there we've tracked for some times and there have been multiple conversations that have occurred at the political level, the ministerial level and of course at the at the community level with the uh rugby league organizations and uh what Miss Blundell described is is absolutely accurate in terms of the I guess modern expression of the of the pathways program as we are um as it is evolving today.
>> Okay. Can I ask the the proposal from Morappape or from the um Papaginian government did that include Fiji, Samaron, and Tonga?
>> So um yes, the the proposal that came in included all four countries. Yes.
>> Okay. So th those other four countries consulted with Prime Minister Morappé on this deal.
>> Um I'm not sure if that was the process, Senator. I think um there but there were regional conversations occurring. Um but when we received the final proposal as I said before it came from Australian Rugby League Commission and then we consulted ourselves to assure ourselves of the support of the countries. There were some letters that came in um there was some um uh engagement with more Fiji and PNG as well on the opportunity to play in the NRL and then what the pathway program would mean for
sporting codes in those countries or was that at ministerial level
>> the the the
>> engaging on with the NRL?
>> So ARC's engagement um which I wasn't a party to but I would infer is probably more with the sporting organizations and stakeholders. Ours was with the governments.
>> Okay. So all of those consultations and I think you mentioned here there were 250 consultations in the countries that was across all four countries. >> Correct. before the deal was announced at between the sporting codes or was it between government to government? So
before we received uh the proposal there were consultations that RLC and DEFAT had had separately after the proposal and and commitment was made the the that's when those further consultations to do a formal design occurred with where that's when I'm referring to 250 people spoken to that was around January February of last year
>> across all four
>> across all four countries and it's it's ongoing senator of And maybe I'll just add that the countries themselves have throughout this period developed uh their own 10-year plans um to to further detail um how they'd like the the pathway program to work from engaging the youngest children through through to sort of more mature kids and then up into the elite
May I may I just add that uh prior to uh the government announcing the uh NRL deal and the pathways program there were consultations with governments and uh and the NRL um bodies in parallel. So the consultations Miss Blundell there's sort of two two phases as I would think of it. one is um as it was being developed as it came in from Prime Minister Morape and the ARLC consultations occurred in that phase and then at the point of um decision there is very detailed consultations on precisely what the program would look like and that's what we would call a formal design phase.
>> Okay. So, and that would include the the $250 million figure. Yes, it it's
specifically for to outline what's to be achieved, what are the activities, um who what how's the budget distributed across those activities.
you know, we're talking about sports diplomacy. So, I'm just wondering whether part of those consultations, we've got 250 people that were consulted, were the rugby union bodies consulted as well? Was did anybody bring up uh I guess the financial issues in rugby union in these countries?
>> So definitely other sporting organizations were consulted. I I would need to I I would want to check to be to be kind of accurate senator if if if the if the union bodies were um but we ourselves have been speaking to the union bodies. I think the way the Pacific understand this opportunity for them um is very much from a youth engagement perspective um and the sport is growing in their countries and obvious obviously it's the number one sport um in PNG but it's still an important sport in the other three countries um but yes um there there have been some stakeholders that have raised that concern that maybe it's all um uh maybe it's a threat to union. But I would note that um that Prime Minister um Rambuka was here last July and he was specifically asked that question at the press club and he he uh said he didn't think that that was the case and that this was a great opportunity for Fiji.
>> It was also a a public place that he was asked that question. So it might not truly reflect his views. But I was just wondering on the the point of the youth engagement perspective, are you aware that um the NRL is now going to high schools in Fiji and I think and perhaps and some are in Tonga but I can't confirm that but they are going in there and trying to flip rugby union schools to NRL to rugby league. Are you aware of that?
>> No, I'm not aware of that. Senator, I I
just, you know, perhaps should be aware of it because if we are trying to do sports diplomacy, I feel like this, you know, could have colonial uh intonations to it. Um I don't think that's what this pathways program intended to do. I think as you said, it's about youth engagement. It's about supporting these countries and the things that they really want to do. Uh and um I think that's that's probably an issue that you might have to look into um because if you think about the issues that rugby union will be facing there, it's essentially poaching players.
>> Senator, if I may, uh we were um very honored to have Lord Fafenua, the new prime minister of Tonga, visit Australia in his first international trip. and uh he expressed a sentiment that I had heard from a number of leaders in the the four countries which is that what they anticipate is that the investments that go into rugby league will also benefit other sports. So for example if ovals are upgraded um there are many sports that will have the opportunity to utilize those ovals if there are gyms that are invested in that won't just be for for rugby leagues. So uh they perceive it as a good opportunity to build sports and all the benefits we know that come from sports in terms of health and development confidence um
accept that. I just think you know uh going into schools and trying to change the nature of the sport that they play there I think is a very different um prospect. But I will end on this because I know I'm out of time. [clears throat] But on the point of uh sporting novels and so forth, um just can you clarify again whether uh any of this funding will go towards infrastructure.
>> Senator, it's it's that we haven't signed a grant funding agreement that says that, but that is my expectation that it'll go towards um this is just for the pathways because we've talked about the big infrastructure for the PNG chiefs. So leaving that aside um that yes that it could go for example to towards um in particular um toilets which are really important for girls participation. It could go towards lights for some of the ovals. So it's it's absolutely within scope but there there's um we're not advanced enough in delivery for for me to say unequivocally but it's it would make a lot of sense. It's been discussed.
>> Y that's good. Um I just wanted to I just wanted to check whether you you'll will you have local content rules about that funding uh and whether you know the um tenders will uh exclude um uh construction companies or companies from uh any particular countries? Will they uh go to local countries uh sorry local tenderers? Um will you have local content? Will you have local employment? That sort of stuff. Have you is that part of DEFAT's obligations at the
moment? Senator, with all of our infrastructure work in the Pacific, um we wherever there is a local market that can deliver those kinds of services, we um we seek to utilize that local market for the benefit of employment and business growth in the Pacific. So, um that that's a principle that exists more broadly. So, it will be applied here as
>> Excellent. Thanks, Senator. Okay. Now, Senator Barbara PCO, I'll give you the
>> Thank you, Chair. Um, and my questions go to the Official Development Assistance, uh, Program 1.2. And I want to just put on the record my appreciation for a recent briefing to me and my staff um, in relation to a range of these matters. I want to follow up on a recent answer to my question on notice portfolio number 303 regarding contract breaches by tenderers. In her verbal response to my questions relating to the safeguards that DEFAT may have instituted to ensure managing contractors do not pass on information uh gained through design or evaluation of programs to their business development unions. Uh, Miss Cohen stated that managing contractors are required to sign confidentiality clauses that limit such advantages. Um, I asked Miss Con to inform the committee when such agreements were last breached and the answer was that the last breach related um ODA related tender processed by a tender was in July 2025 uh with no further details provided. So could you now on the uh give us information on the nature of this breach uh the programs it related to the value of these contracts which tenderers were involved in this breach and what was the outcome of the >> Sorry there's a lot of little questions in there [laughter] >> and it's late in the day.
>> Uh Natalie Cohen first assistant secretary development programming division. um the breach that uh you had asked about the last time a breach occurred and um you're right I I responded >> um along the lines that you you would have spoke about that um breach I I probably don't have all the information that you've asked for um with me now but that breach related um related to the submission of the inclusion of information in tender um in the bid documents that was not meant to be there. It was referring to a reference to a um DEFAT staff member within the tender bid. >> Um and uh the company was excluded from the process. I don't have um further detail with me.
>> So if you could take on notice then the value of the contract, which tenderers were involved and they were excluded from the contract, were there any other consequences for them as a result of that breach?
No.
>> Could you give us the details on notice for every such breach in the last 5
>> I'll take that on notice and and see what we can provide.
>> Um, so as we have discussed, I've got concerns about actual and perceived conflicts of interest particularly where the same contractor or its affiliates involved in the design, implementation or evaluation of aid programs. In December, Defat DEFAT agreed to take on notice my request for a list of all those large contracts over 10 million awarded to manage aid programs over the last five years where the same company or its affiliate was involved in multiple steps in the process. and the answer arrived and states that from January 2021 to December 2025 of a total 103 contracts valued at 10 million and above uh published on OS tender 12 were designed by the same company or people working for the company that won the subsequent procurement and you gave me the table on that which shows that say just a couple of examples DT global designing the PNG Australia transport sector support program phase three they designed it and then there are awarded a $223 million contract to implement it. Uh Cardo designed the S Solomon Islands infrastructure program and then when they were awarded a $73 million contract to implement it. DEFAT's practice note uh titled guidance on managing perceived advantage in procurement for foreign assistance projects references the rule 10.8 eight of the CPRs in saying that relevant ent entities must quote avoid a potential supplier or group of potential suppliers gaining an unfair advantage in a competitive procurement process. How is this allowed under your pro procurement policies? It does seem like a huge conflict of interest on very large contracts. They're not small
So Senator, I might just make initial comment on it and then um uh ask Natalie maybe just talk about the issue about how we manage issues of potential conflicts of interest in in programs going forward. I think as you'd asked last time this question here is where there's um incidences where there's a um a contractor that may bid for a design and that contractor then may bid for the implementation. I think as we said it's a it's 10% or less than 10% of the programs that we we have. This is an issue we've looked at over a number of times about how we're trying to ensure that we're getting the skill sets and the people that we need to be able to design often quite complex programs in the companies in the countries we're operating in. So particularly in the Pacific, we've got small markets. We've got programs that are dealing with quite complex arrangements about how we deliver transport, health, education programs. And there's incidents where we have in where we have had a much clearer breakdown where we won't accept it and we don't get the the the quality of um uh people or tenders putting in for the design because if they're if they've got people on their company and you got to remember in some of these countries you're talking about very small markets a limited number of people have got that expertise and if they're potentially going to be involved in the implementation of a program they won't put their hand up for the design and so that can be a challenge for us when we want to ensure that we got the the right skill sets, capacities and abilities to have the personnel to be part of designing often multi-year complex programs that are dealing with managing risk issues, government business having said that when there is an question where then a company has designed it then the issue about how then we manage the any issues of conflicts of interest the implementation I'll ask um Miss Cohen to talk talk through a bit but some of that as you recall the briefing went through in terms of appropriate advisor the signatures that people got to make on the conflicts of interest but yeah
>> thank you yeah and and to put on the record senator of course you know it's in our interest to have the broadest playing field, you know, possible of of companies that are bidding. We want to get the best value for money. Um the lowest cost, the highest effectiveness. Um we do, as you've said, allow um organizations to bid for subsequent work. If they've done the design, they can um bid to do the implementation, but we do look to manage those property and conflict of interest risks risks. Um there are a few ways we do that. One is that we release all of the relevant information to the market early in the procurement process. So we do that through business notifications. We do industry briefings and we have what we call collaboration spaces where we work through um concepts with a short a short list of tenderers um before going to market for the full design. Um we do ask tenderers to warrant um that they have not received improper assistance and that they've acted ethically in preparing their bids. As you mentioned before, we have confidentiality obligations in all DEFAT contracts. And um we apply those confidentiality requirements to tenderers but also to DEFAT staff who are involved in the process and who may be sitting on evaluation committees for example as part of the procurement process. And we also seek external property advice for any property issues that involve um incumbents um designers or evaluators. And we have independent external um property advisers on all uh procurement processes above $3 million. And we often um have probate advisers assigned to procurements of le less value than that where we see that there's a risk to be
managed. Isn't there a risk that if you uh allow um significant big players um to and the field of potential competitors know that someone big has tended for the design and won it that you then you know thin out the field for the de for the implementation group like there's a risk both ways isn't there? I
mean there is I mean there's always a risk in terms of trying to ensure that we get the quality and the the um the best design that that we can ensure goes out to market on it um while also trying to ensure that um uh um companies feel there's a a transparent fair um uh process on it. It's an issue which we continue to test. We continue to look at what the market how the how we best engage and address the market on it. But I think the key point that Miss Cohen talked about is the industry briefings that go forward and it's not just a one-stage put it online. Here's a design. There's an industry briefing where all industry can come they can ask questions on it. They can all pose questions which then the department will then respond to to all providers to have. So there's a way that if there were concerns in relation to well is there information that one may have more than others any provider who may be thinking for a tender can put forward that in their in industry briefing and and there's often for our bigger ones there's a two-stage industry briefing process where it's initially goes out to say this is what we're looking at this is the type of direction we we're we're approaching on it and then once the design's um finalized there'll be then more detailed sort of industry briefing sort of on it but look we we're often frankly senator we're dealing with in in complex environments we do we are always trying to encourage competition uh we're in the fortunate situation now when one might argue where there are more companies that are now looking at with some of the unfortunate cuts in ODA they are looking at opportunities and we're we're looking at how we can engage and bring them in >> um so it's a yeah you know I think we've got the systems to try and manage it we're open to companies about where we do think the risks are. We've got the clear issues of conflicts of interest, but it is a space we need to continue to evolve and think about how we best balance those those risks.
>> Thank you. Um I've got some questions about the amount of corporate tax paid in Australia by the top 10 managing contractors. You had agreed to take on notice my request for this information. Uh since DEFAT's procurement process requires all applicants to provide uh all tender valid and satisfactory statements of tax records to be submitted. Um your your department hesitated in responding to this query and cited there were privacy posision provisions associated with tax. However, the ATO's publicly available corporate tax transparency reports indicate that some of the largest managing contractors for the Australian Aid Program, including Palladium, Boston Consulting Group, DT Global, and AP Associates, all paid zero taxes in 2324 despite holding very sizable Australian contracts. Um, private managing contractors, particularly those with parent entities registered and head headquartered abroad, have corporate structures that allow profit to be booked offshore, meaning Australian taxpayer funded contracts generated li generate a very limited uh domestic tax return. So, I'm reiterating my request for this data. Um, I'm asking for the total amount of corporate tax paid in Australia by these top companies over the last five years. I am very concerned and minister I I'd be interested in your view about the use of transfer pricing for example to avoid the payment of tax in Australia by these very large very profitable entities.
>> Well I mean as a statement of principle the government supports all organizations um paying uh the tax that they are beyond that I'm not aware of any position that we've taken uh that specifically addresses your question.
>> Okay. Well, I'll look forward to that.
>> Well, I mean, the only thing I'd say further on and I think as we said in in the answer, what we require when any company submits for attention is that they've met their requirements under the tax arrangements. We obviously don't defat doesn't have responsibility for the the the tax policies, tax arrangements. um uh obviously the ATO can can provide that and and and and as they should. I think the only point I would make and and I can't verify in terms of which companies have or haven't paid tax, but um some of the companies you've mentioned as well um they were Australian companies um that uh often when they bid for the work they've um been implementing the work, but there's also been a range of mergers and acquisitions over the number of years. is I think we mentioned this that which obviously the department itself doesn't control in terms of the corporate commercial elements of that. Um so we ensure that whenever a company submits in a tender they've got to demonstrated they're meeting their tax requirements but that question you asked I guess is one really more for the uh treasury and and the ATO.
>> Yeah. Thank you. I wanted to go to a recent OECD report um and I've got some questions in relation to it. It's titled OECD development cooperation peer reviews Australia 2025. Are you familiar with that report?
>> Yes.
>> Y thank you. Uh it was quite critical of Australia's aid program delivery. On my reading page 10 says that quote the significant use of contractors across design and delivery is contributing to missed opportunities. It says that when coupled with high turnover and often limited development experience amongst posted DEFAT staff, it can contribute to short-term risk averse decision-making leading to missed opportunities for more strategic, innovative and transformative programming. How do you respond to this
criticism? Um I mean I think if you put the full context of the report, the report sort of highlights where the Australian government is and has invested a lot more in terms of its capability and how it manages you know complex development programs in in in in the Indopacific region. Um you know the benefit of an OECDP review is it is an opportunity to sort of um share experiences and perspectives across different uh development organizations. Um I think what it's highlighted is that you know we um as I said earlier we're operating in in often in smaller markets in the Pacific. We're often working in in in complex countries where we're managing those elements and and we've made it clearly why we need contractors at times to be able to ensure that we can not just get the the the skill sets but the local um capacity that we need to be able to deliver those. Um I would say that one of the recommendations on that that we do accept and we need to consider is is it is important to have continuity. You know we do always face a challenge that in in the in our international network we have people posted for periods of time uh often two three four years and whenever those change over and you've got contracts so that you got to manage that carefully and that's something which I think we are uh we acknowledge and we want to look at investing in one of the things which I think the report does highlight which we would which we agree and we've accept it will take forward is how we continue to invest in the local our locally engaged staff they're the backbone often of the management agement of our programs. They're the ones who do provide the continuity of that. Um, and we, I believe, have very high quality staff across our network. Um, but, uh, as we deal with an evolving situation with more disruption occurring with the development assistance environment, we need to invest more in those staff and ensuring in managing contracts and these complex arrangements that we can we can deal with it. Um yes I think we don't accept all the the findings of the report but we think it was certainly helpful in terms of uh peers sharing perspectives on on different implementation arrangements on the development program
>> and do you intend to adopt specific steps in relation to their uh analysis and their critique?
>> Yeah. So the report came out I think in couple of weeks ago. Um >> um and I might pass it to to to Kath to talk on in a second but it it only came out a few weeks ago. Um we have been engaged in the with the OECD on the report. I was in um at the OECD in early December when we went through the elements and and they wanted to ask further questions on on the process and we absolutely will be taking on different elements of recommendation how we can continue to improve on our on our implementation program.
>> I look forward to hearing that next time maybe we come together. Did you want to add anything more Miss Gill?
>> Uh thanks Senator Katherine Gil uh acting first assistant secretary devel policy and equality division. Um yeah, the report was released on the 20th of January, so it's obviously quite recent. We're looking in in detail at the recommendations. The report um is built on consultations that were done with a lot of our really key stakeholders um in Australia um and during the visit to team ore. So NOS's, academia, our contracting community were all engaged in the report. So we've undertaken to go back to to those stakeholders to discuss the reports findings a number of them because it's been the deck peerreview process itself was over a year. We've been having extensive discussions all along and a lot of the reflections and recommendations in the report are things that we're already considering and integrating into the program.
>> Okay. Look forward to hearing more about that in the future. Um, I wanted to move to contractors and the banning of those who behave badly. In response to my question on notice number 303, DEFAT said, quote, "If a tender is found to have made false or misleading claims or statements would have obtained improper assistance connected with the preparation of its tender, DEFAT may exclude the tender tender from further consideration. I'm just interested in how that works. And just for context, I have introduced a private senator's bill to ban unethical contractors from getting government work for up to five years where they're shown to have behaved unethically or illegally. Can you walk me through the process of how DEFAT can or does exclude tenderers from further consideration?
>> Thank Thank you, Senator. Um so uh the first thing is to say that for the development program um all of the procurement processes that are valued above $500,000 are managed um through a central procurement team with professional expertise um who work closely with the program area that will be implementing the program um once the contract's finalized. So through that process um we step through the various parts of the cycle. Some of those I covered in my earlier response about how we manage um the conflict of interest and confidentiality issues. But um as also mentioned we have an external property advisor assigned to each of those two. So um the property advisor will work with us right through from the sort of initial briefing on the concept um through to setting up the procurement process going through the bids and then writes a report afterwards. And they also help us communicate with a variety of stakeholders. Um should we be made aware of any breaches for example the one that I referenced earlier or perhaps we get a tip from somebody or advice um we will consult with the property advisor and look at you know what kind of an issue is it what's the proportionality of the risk or the concern um relevant to the process and uh we can make a decision to exclude a tender which is what happened in that earlier example as well. Uh so that's that's the sort of steps that we will go through and we will take advice from the probate advisor throughout that process depending on the um amount of funding and the financial delegate. It may be that the financial delegate is a deputy secretary in the department and we would be consulting with whomever the delegate is along that process as well.
>> Any last questions there to wrap up?
>> Yep. I can do
>> I've got another senator before 6 and we
have to finish at six. >> So I'll squeeze this bit in. Um in the case of PWC and its breach uh in using confidential government information to make money uh the there was no um exclusion of PWC subsequent to its misdemeanor. It was excluded from government contracting by mutual agreement as opposed to a decision to ban or prevent contracting. Have you, it sounds to me that you have gone about excluding contractors by directly preventing them from cons continuing with a bid uh and not by mutual agreement. Do I understand that correctly?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. How many times in the last 5 years have you used your power to exclude tenderist from further consideration?
>> I'd have to take that on notice for the five years, Senator. Yeah.
>> Thank you. Finally, let me ask um does DEFAT currently have rules regarding personnel who move from the department to working for managing contractors or from managing contractors to the department in terms of cooling off?
>> Yeah. Yes. Yes, we do, Senator. Um we uh so the rules are around a 9 months cooling off period if somebody has been involved closely in the for example the design or the concept of a program and then wanting to work on that particular issue or program or if they've worked very closely with a DEFAD officer who's in you know engaged in the same program. Um but I uh that's a policy run by our um chief people officer. So if you want more information, we'll need to
>> Thanks. I'm interested in at what level uh that applies, what level of staffing it applies and whether you keep track of employees who are subject to such calling off. I'm happy to take that on notice if it's complex.
>> Yeah, take that on.
>> I can take across all staff.
>> She's dying to talk about it.
>> I know, but unfortunately we don't have much time left. All right. Thanks, Senator. >> Uh Senator Dean Smith and then um we'll be finishing at 6:00 and releasing this part of the department. It's a Dean Smith's not here. Where is >> Where's Dino? >> Well, no. We can finish early, too. >> Where is he? >> Is he around? >> There he is. Come on, Dean. I called you twice. Third time. Third final strike.
>> Thank you very much. Do I have the call?
>> Yes. >> Great. Thank you very much. We've got a search team.
>> Thank you for your participation this afternoon and this morning. I just want to follow up a line of questioning that I pursued earlier in the week at the Senate Environment and Communications Committee and that's in regards to preparations for the COP 31 pre-conference uh meeting or meetings. During that uh line of inquiry uh DQ was able to confirm that an inter interdep departmental group had been established of which they are I think the primary or the the lead and foreign affairs and trade were members. Is that correct?
>> No worries mate.
>> So so yes this is in terms of the an IDC process for the preparations of COP 31. >> Yeah. So yes, I was part of a band three conversation I think in in um mid December uh where obviously by you know it was fairly uh recent we'd come to the um resolution and outcome in terms of the the process with Tur Turkey A1 and uh I think there's another one planned in the next week or two. I'd have to look at my my diary. Uh
>> so that will be the second one.
>> Yes. I mean having said that there's regular constant engagement between um the department of foreign affairs and trade the department of climate change and PMC DQ is a lead on this obviously um we support them in relation to engagement so um the ambassador for climate change here Miss Dan newvis is regularly speaking to them but yes there um there was a band three IDC I participated on as I said before uh Christmas I think it was the 16th of December and there's another one planned
I'm assuming you have a forward work program when it comes to the government's delivery of COP 31.
Uh, will an ambassador for climate change? Yes. Something of a work forward work program, although the venue and the timing of the pre-cult meeting, for example, is is yet to be determined. So, obviously, that's something that we're taking forward in partnership with Pacific Partners. Uh so we're working through those processes at the moment.
>> Can you take on notice um making available to the committee uh some high level details about your forward work program as it relates to COP 31 pre-conference event?
>> Yeah, I mean maybe just so what for the the ambassador one of his key roles is obviously international climate diplomacy. So how we're engaging with countries um both in communicating the work that uh uh Australia is doing on climate, how we're working and driving ambition of other countries on that. But
>> so I'm specifically interested in the COP 31 pre-conference uh event or events. Um just step me through what is the decision making process uh in determining the venue for the COP 31 pre-conference event and the timing. Now when I say event I might mean events as well plural and what are the um t known timelines or expected timelines around the preop 31 um pre-conference events and the decision making around those.
>> Yeah. So I think you recall I think it was last estimates senator when we were talking on this was one of the outcomes of the the resolution was having a pre-OP leaders event in the Pacific. M um uh that was something that uh obviously the Pacific themselves had highlighted as a really key thing was bringing people and leaders to see the challenges being faced by understand Pacific island countries. The process is fundamentally going to be um around um a number of Pacific island countries uh have expressed some some interest. Um there'll be uh a discussion actually occurring now between um Pacific leaders and and and through um the involvement of Pacific Island Forum to determine uh who will be the host and then the timing of that event. So the key thing is it'll be a decision largely informed from Pacific Island countries >> um as to uh what they see as the most uh appropriate uh location and timing for for the COP.
>> Yeah. So that is all to be expected. What I'm interested in understanding are what are the mechanisms and processes that sit under that broad statement. So, has the Australian government sought formal expressions of interest from Pacific Island nations?
>> Sorry, can you say say that again, Senator?
>> Formal expressions of interest from Pacific Island nations to host the pre-conference event.
>> Yeah. So, there was a um troa meeting uh sorry, a troa is the three >> uh countries met um Minister Bowen was part of uh a week and a half ago now, I think. um where there was discussion around the pre-OP and it was uh proposed that countries that were interested would put forward an expression of interest uh that's now been done and and I refer back to my earlier point that that will now lead into discussions between leaders to determine uh where the hosting and timing of
>> so the expressions of interest have been lodged with us from our Pacific island nations
>> the Pacific island countries themselves
have lodged those so which have lodged an interest
>> I mean I think I'd prefer not to go into in in in in estimates uh it's obviously those countries have put it forward in terms of respecting the process and
thought for a second right I'll come back to that >> um just explain to me um the Pacific Island forum mechanism my understanding is that the Pacific Island forum usually meets in August September that's right on the eve of COP I would say so how is the Pacific Island forum um mechanisms um how are they engaged? At what level are they engaged? And does it require a formal Pacific Island Forum endorsement of the Australian choice or the Australian preference?
>> I might make a couple of comments and then my my colleagues from the Office of the Pacific probably better to talk around the sort of architecture of the Pacific Island Forum. But you know, there are a range of different um parts of the Pacific Island Forum. there's a climate change ministers element where they meet and minister Bowen's met with them a number of times to talk in the preparations of COP 31 resolution and then subsequently on this there's um Solomon's is currently the chair of the PIFF and Palao will be the incoming chair and um uh but but the PIF have both got formal and informal pro structures for how they come to consensus or come to decisions around uh issues of of of future hosts and arrangement including as I've outlined the process we see that will unfold in deciding on the pre-op.
>> Good afternoon, Senator. Elizabeth Peak, head of the office of the Pacific. Uh the short answer to your your question is it doesn't require the Pacific Island forum leaders to formally meet in person at the leaders summit. Uh as Mr. is has said there are mechanisms to allow uh countries to have a view and and often that is is via uh the chair sending a notice out to to countries and allowing them to provide feedback.
>> So I understand that. So, does the PIFF require is the PIFF required to give a formal endorsement? Whether it's an endorsement because everyone meets in person or whether it's an endorsement via email, are they required to provide a formal endorsement to uh Australia's choice or Australia's preference?
>> Uh Senator, I I think the characterization is is is if I may not quite accurate. Um it wouldn't be our choice. I think ministers.
>> So what is the correct way to describe it?
>> Uh it will be the Pacific Islandum vendor's choice and it will be
endorse a choice or make a choice?
>> Uh ultimately that will be a matter for the Pacific Island forum secretariat in consultation with the chair and the the troa. But typically what happens is that uh there is uh a discussion in the in the troa. um a proposition is put uh by by in writing to vary all of the Pacific Island Forum members and uh then they would have an opportunity to express a view and if they didn't express a view there might be a time frame uh that passes like a silence procedure we would call it in in other fora and um and consensus will have been reached in that modality.
So, um, in choosing a location, does the location have to be in a Pacific Island nation or could Australia host it in Australia on behalf of a Pacific island nation?
>> Senator, the the expectation is very clear that it would be hosted in a Pacific Island nation.
>> Thank you. If I could just just add Senator uh the A the Tokier Australia partnership modalities agreed with Tokier indeed says the prec will be hosted in a Pacific island country in a location to be decided by the Pacific supported by the government of Australia. So it's it's very clear that in that agreement that it will be in a Pacific island country >> in a location to be decided by the Pacific. Hence the process that M and Mr. B talked about with the Pacific Island Forum taking that forward.
what is the time frame? What is the time
>> Senator, there's no explicit time frame that's been articulated yet by the chair of the and the secretariat of the Pacific Island Forum, although we do expect uh it it is on everyone's mind as you might imagine. uh there is a lot of enthusiasm around the idea of uh the pre-OP being in the Pacific and having world leaders and and other senior people attend and and see the climate issues on the ground and so we anticipate that it will be resolved shortly.
what funding allocation has been made specifically to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade um to progress our COP 31 pre-conference commitments?
>> Senator uh the department has received an allocation. uh it was through the additional estimates process 13.089 million over two years from 202526 to support and deliver on Australia's >> generally to deliver on commitments to the Pacific preop and pre-COP leaders.
Right. So on notice, can you provide me a breakdown of that 13 uh089 million dollars in terms of what amount of funding for what initiatives or projects whether they be accommodation, travel commitments, etc. So combined with the 79.1 million that was provided to DQ as part of its additional estimates that would bring uh the total to uh close to $102 million in regards to your department and DQ. That's more of a statement than a question. >> I trust you. Um given the given the hard marker of 6 um I do want to go back to your um previous comment about not wanting to disclose information in this forum. I I respect that. So Minister, I was hoping that I might be able to secure a private briefing with officials around the COP 31 pre-conference preparations.
>> I'm sure that would be fine to organize a private briefing. Obviously the officials will need to consider what information can be provided in that
briefing >> and we can discuss the terms and conditions under which the briefing is provided. Thank you. Thank you chair.
>> Okay. Well and uh we'll have a chat about that at a later point I guess as a >> Thank you everyone. Um on that note we are now going to break for dinner but just to be clear um we'll be now releasing the non-trade part of the department. So thank you Miss Adams. Um >> I understand we'll have uh the trade folks after dinner. We're moving
straight to trade.
>> Trade. Yep. >> Yep. Yep. So, we'll be here after dinner.
>> No dramas.