Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 34:22 to 1:16:56
Discussion focuses on the department's rollout of Microsoft Copilot, AI governance, and corporate costs including office fit-outs and public holiday work arrangements.
Topics: Artificial intelligence, Government IT systems, Workplace relations, Carbon farming
Speakers: Jim Betts, Matthew Canavan, Susan Charles, Hon Bridget McKenzie, Jeff Goedecke, Jessica Hall, Maree Bridger, Matt O'Sullivan, Pan Sias, Senator Matthew Canavan, Sonia Bradley, Speaker 11, Speaker 15
>> Any further? Senator Sheldon. >> Thank you. ask about the department's implementation of the AI plan for the Australian public service.
>> Okay. Um thank you. So uh we are in the early stages of implementing um artificial intelligence functionality within our department. Um our chief uh information officer um will um come to the table in a second. Uh consistent with the Australian public services uh uh AI plan which was released by the finance minister on the 12th of November um we are adopting a controlled and responsible approach to the roll out of AI with appropriate human oversight and precautions to ensure safe use. Microsoft um co-pilot is being rolled out um from or has been rolled out um from mid January uh this year um within a protected Microsoft 365 environment which ensures that we have standard features in terms of security and compliance um in order to access and use um co-pilot um staff are required to undertake man mandatory training in terms of responsible and ethical use of AI. uh we've undertaken with um support and guidance from the attorney general's department um uh a privacy impact assessment um and are developing or have developed uh departmental policies on transparency, privacy and so on. uh the governance that we've established around um AI um reflecting recommendations from an internal audit review uh is consistent with the APS AI plan and we um are in the process of appointing a chief AI officer and AI accountable officer which is required to occur under the plan by the 30th of June this year.
>> Thank you. You've just covered off my first couple of questions that thank you. Um so just prior to the implement well you're implementing the plan now so up till when the plan first came out what was the use of AI what what measures were in place
>> nil
>> if any I mean
>> we didn't have we didn't have the functionality we've got um we've talked about our office accommodation we also have um uh some fairly legacy IT systems so Microsoft co-pilot will be the first time we will have officially have adopted AI within our department uh and indeed We've taken precautionary steps to ensure that other um generative and other AI apps are not used on departmental devices. Um uh we need to establish an appropriate riskbased framework um for governing a AI use and we're now in a position to do that having acquired Microsoft 365 and
In relation to you said the appointment of the chief AI officer will occur by the uh end of June.
>> It's required to occur by the end of June and we might be able to keep you on
track to meet that requirement earlier possibly.
>> Yes, Senator Jeff Godi, chief information officer. So we've probably got within our construct now we have people that are executing the expectations around those roles but the formal part of the formal governance arrangements will have us formally appoint that so they'll be signed off by the secretary so we expect that will have happen in the coming months uh but well ahead of the June deadline
>> and what level will that position be
>> it'll be need to be at the SCES level so we envisage uh the BAM one SCES level
so you've you've you've got training underway already. So it's a requirement to use co-pilot. You have to
>> Yes. individuals have to undertake the training before they
>> and that's already in place now. Okay.
>> That's being rolled out as we speak.
what proportion of the departmental staff then have completed that training?
So um the way we're it's an opt optin so different people are more confident than others. So we're allowing people to self um nominate for it and as the secretary said uh to do that they have to uh be across the uh our responsible use of AI policy in the department. They also have to complete an AI um in government fundamentals course as a mandatory training and acknowledge that and then the uh the uh licenses issued to them and then there's a whole range of training that they can uh undertake uh after that at this stage we we've been it's been about two weeks we've got about 600 people that have uh opted in so far and I think as you and the really the thing about this is it's one of the it's a real community kind of effort where people train each other up and you know help each other out. So we expect that to grow uh in the next couple of
>> And is your implementation of co-pilot does that enable is that sort of sit within a world garden if you like uh in terms of you if you're uploading information to it does it does it stay within your own system or is it
>> we do so we have a
>> more widely available
>> a protected ten teny that we operate within. So that means we can uh access uh use it for uh more sensitive information up to the protector level. Uh so and that all the security and controls are in place to make sure there are no leaks.
Thank you. Uh I'll move on to
>> just on that is limited to just Microsoft product
>> at this point it is. Yes. So what about
Adobe say some of their products like Lightroom um would any of those be and which which do use AI as part of what
they're doing? >> That's that's that's right. There's a lot of uh probably most things that are pushed out now from technology perspectives have um have AI um capabilities within their platforms. We individually assess all of those before we can um uh push them out for use. So we have to be we have to go through a range of checks. Security is one part of it. Privacy is very very important as well. So that's that's how we do that. That's why we're very focused as the secretary said at the moment on on just the co-pilot implementation. You might recall there was a whole of government uh trial a way back uh which really um informed the work that we're doing at the moment.
>> So you're restricted just to Microsoft products at this point in time. You wouldn't be using Lightroom or or some of those Adobe products.
>> At this point we are focused on that. That's right. We've got um our we have published our AI transparency uh statement which is very clear about the use cases that we uh will be using for
>> So does that contain a definition of AI?
>> The the statement um doesn't talk about a specific definition. It just talks about uh how we use AI, the types of things that we will use it for. I think um I think it's probably the more the definition would be around the um the DTA would um publish specific
>> yeah so the AI policy defines terms in terms of AI generally and then it's applied at the local level by departments and their individual policies and governance structures and the procurement decisions that we take. So we took a decision some time back to move um all of the department to Microsoft 365 and the AI product associated with that is co-pilot. Um however we only allow access to co-pilot as we've explained on the back of training to make sure that um ethical and other considerations are taken fully
into account. So, so you're doing assessment on other products? I mean, and so I say say again, Adobe. Um, do you do assessment? Are you doing assessments on those? Because if you're limiting yourself to Microsoft products, there are a range of other products out there that it would inhibit your
I >> I would just say, Senator, this is a starting point for us. So I and the thing about AI it's really about um this is about individual productivity. We focus on not um replacing uh people and things like that. So uh what we have to do is we have to build the uh generative AI understanding and confidence in the environment. Uh we rolled out Microsoft 365 which is the digital productivity suite the most modern one and that helps with our um you know remote access and people working from home and all those things around the country. Um it's it's just u it's purpose built for uh that kind of um uh capability. I guess the the co-pilot working with Microsoft. It doesn't mean that in the future we won't be going for other products uh outside of Microsoft. It's just that this is our starting point on
>> and and look I get that but it would have to be significantly inhibiting your capacity given the functionality that exists on that platform but not on
others. But we're not just we acknowledge that AI has the capacity generally to significantly increase the productivity of all organizations not just government departments. Um but we need to make sure that it is procured and rolled out in a way which is consistent with public expectations around privacy around making sure that decision- making is fair that some of the potential pitfalls with AI having inbuilt biases and so on it needs to be very carefully managed. Um and for us we've had no AI functionality in the department prior to um mid January. So
what what asurances have you got that people aren't staff aren't working around you know like using their mobile phone for example loading up chat GPT or or Google Gemini or Grock or whatever and and utilizing >> utilizing that.
>> It's a very real risk senator that one. Um so what I'd say to that is that um in terms of departmental information we don't allow the use of uh any other products on our department's network. I guess your press your question might go to well what about off the network. >> Um I think the biggest risk is uh not providing tools for people to use and they'll just go and use them anyway because they use in their own life. So for us it's about providing capability like co-pilot and whatever follows um um to to allow people to use that so there at least you can manage the risk that you can see because you can't see you can't see the other ones. So it's about education as well um um I guess
>> are staff fully aware that that would be a breach of your policies and procedures.
>> Yeah, it's very clear.
>> Okay. Uh can I ask to a different topic? uh want to ask about the infrastructure and transport ministers >> Not seeing anyone else come to the table. So is this for you?
>> Well, yeah. I mean, I'm happy to have a go. Obviously it's infrastructure which is outcome one and it's transport which is outcome two. So it depends on your questions really.
>> Yeah sure. Okay. Well I just want to understand when was the last infrastructure and transport ministers meeting?
>> That was on the uh 11th 21st of November
>> Uh and some of this we might deal with later and that's fine. But uh were there uh were there any discussions at that meeting or was an agenda item to discuss the infrastructure needs to support Orcus
>> to support Orcus? Uh no we uh there weren't um there was a wide ranging agenda looking at safety around driving instructors around personal mobility devices um around uh the national road safety strategy and default speed limits which we talked about extensively at um at uh at Senate estimates in um uh in December. Uh generally speaking, if we were talking about infrastructure investment related to ARCUS, that would be not that would be outside a forum which has all of the states and territories represented in it and more likely to take place in bilateral discussions between the Commonwealth government and say the governments of Western Australia and South Australia.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um have the dates for the 20 26 uh calendar been scheduled? Not that
I'm aware of, but um typically it's a six-month cadence, so we would expect the next meeting to be around May.
when was the minister's most recent meeting with her West Australian counterpart?
>> Uh I wouldn't know the answer to that necessarily. Um we could take that on notice and see what we could find out.
therefore you wouldn't know what was discussed at that meeting would if if and take it.
>> Uh
>> you wouldn't have that information.
>> I don't know.
>> Okay. If you could then come back to me. I'm keen to understand if the road infrastructure requirements forc and the Henderson defense precinct were
we'll be in a better position to have that discussion when we've got the officials at the table under outcome one recognizing that a significant part of that will relate to conversations with the defense department.
>> Yeah. No, I understand that. Um that's it for me for corporate
Okay. Call >> call back. Um I was just having a look at a different FOI document that says FOI 2696. Um this one um goes through in quite deep amount of detail uh the costs of indoor plants. Now I notice here looks like the costs of um servicing indoor plants across your facilities has increased by roughly 10,000 odd per year. Is that right? So I've got 2223 it cost 41 thou 419,900 and then last financial year total cost 52,000
>> I don't have that information at my fingertips so I will ask others to help
>> Senator, I'm just going to check if I've got that information for you. Um,
Senator, we might um take this on notice if we can and come back to you. We'll just confirm the information that we
Okay. Have you got that FOI in front of you or can presumably you've got easy access to those? >> I don't but I can but I'll come back to you on that one. Hang on. I'll send that to the committee. >> Um so that you do
>> I do have further information um that I can provide to you on the other uh question around the ceiling issue in that I'd just like to add and clarify for you.
>> Yep. Sure. What was the email? Uh the
only other thing that I'd like to add, you asked whether the department uh incurred any costs as a result of that. We did engage our own uh engineering consultant to do a structural check as well just to assure ourselves that what the other uh engineer had told us was was going to ensure our safety of our
>> Okay. Sorry. Okay. How much were those costs?
>> I'm going to get that figure for you.
>> Sorry, I might have missed that. I was talking to the secretary. Um Okay. All right. Well, we might move on then while we get that tabled. Um, just wanted to ask some questions about policies relating to public holidays. Does the department have EBAS or employment arrangements uh which allow employees or contractors to choose to work public holidays?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Do these arrangements apply to each of the following Australia Day, Anzac Day, Easter, and Christmas? It's a
long list of uh of uh days which qualify and they're specified in whole of government policies under the enterprise agreement is my understanding.
>> Uh do we have information on the particular days I read out?
>> You're confident that all of those days are covered but um I can double check
that. >> Sorry, Senator.
>> Australia Day, Anzac Day, Easter, and Christmas. That's all they're all covered.
>> Yes.
>> How many employees worked on Christmas Day last year?
Um we had no employees work on Christmas day.
>> How many worked on Australia Day this
>> This year um we had 32 employees
>> work on Austral. Okay. Um does it is any for any of those 32 employees do they receive additional loading or benefits from working on the public holiday?
>> No, they don't.
>> They don't get that at all. Um
>> it's a it's a day it's it's treated as a day swap.
>> Okay. Of those 32, how many worked in the office? How many worked from home and how many worked in the office?
>> Uh, Senator Pan Siad's acting assistant secretary. Um, we don't collect that information. We do encourage uh employees who are approved to swap uh and work on a public holiday to work from home on that day rather than from uh any of the department's premises uh for health and safety reasons.
>> Right. Because there's hardly anyone in there.
>> Yeah, >> that's right.
>> Okay. How do you know they're actually
working? Uh, Senator, that's a local arrangement between an employee and their supervisor where they're expected to uh ensure that there are key deliverables that are met. Uh, and so advice is provided to uh managers uh to ensure that they're satisfied that there is appropriate work that employees may uh proceed with um carrying on in a generally unsupervised environment.
>> Okay. All right. Okay. Um All right. Uh I might move on. Uh last estimates I asked about um carbon values that are used uh for assessing infrastructure projects. Um I um you put on notice the a question about uh how much those those or what what is the actual value uh of the carbon prices for these assessments. um not really answered. I'm just going to bring it up. So it was question 244. are the values that they use? And the answer came back ministers approved a nationally consistent set of carbon values for use in transport infrastructure project decision making. Uh at the following um ministerial meeting, infrastructure transport ministers meeting in June 2024, ministers providing principal support for the use of nationally consistent set of carbon values in business cases for projects over $100 million. So that's all well and good, but the the answer doesn't tell me what the values are. So what are the values?
>> Okay, so I think the values are held by infrastructure Australia and I think published on their website, but I'm going to ask Mr. Major Economics Group to
>> answer that. Hi, Senator Justin. Uh,
>> Sorry, I just missed that. Sorry, just trying to coordinate things here. What What was that again? Sorry. Can you
>> That's all right. Sorry. Um, Senator,
Infrastructure Australia website.
>> So, why don't you just give me those >> to the to the answer to the question?
>> I'm not sure, sir, Mr. You necessarily asked that question, but it's in the public domain.
>> Well, you didn't. >> No, you didn't even say that. Um, so, um, okay. Can you give me the values? Do you have them? >> Give me the values.
>> So, happy to table these.
>> All right. Great. Let's have them. Yep. >> Can we have them now? >> Yes. Okay, fantastic. Thank you. Um, okay. Well, I've got a couple of follow-ups then and I think after we get stuff tabled. So, chair, if I think Senator McKenzie might have some questions.
>> Sure. Senator McKenzie,
>> Secretary, lovely to see you. >> Um, just wanted some questions about the cost of the department's camber reloc relocation strategy.
I'd like to understand what is the cost for each stage. So, and stage one is as I understand it relocation from city locations.
>> Yes. So, we were explaining to Senator C obviously answer your question. We we were explaining to Senator Canavan earlier on that we are moving from four locations in CRA progressively to two over time. Uh the first move will be to um consolidate um around 843 staff into seven London circuit. The lease commences around the middle of this year and then we are in the final stages of negotiating leases and securing appropriate approvals for the second building which will be one city hill. Um and we will move progressively from our four locations down to two over the um next 18 months.
>> Is that over 18 months? Did you say
>> 18 months? Yeah,
for stage one and stage two?
>> Okay, so we'll we'll answer that in terms of the fit out costs. As I was explaining to the senator earlier on, part of the reason we're doing this is to save money. So over the term of the leases, we will save money, not least through a 40% reduction in leased office space within CRA for our staff. But obviously when we move into new offices, there are upfront costs associated with project fit out. And I'll ask um Mr. How
>> So the lease for Seven London Circuit is for 15 years. >> Yep. >> And the lease for One City Hill will be for 20 years. >> So the fit out costs for seven London circuit are will be 23.4 million. >> Mhm. >> And the estimated fit out costs um at this stage noting that we went to the um public works committee last Friday um are 33.3.
33.3. Okay. So, what is the change in office floor space between your existing arrangements and and these new buildings?
>> It's a 40% reduction. So,
>> 40% reduction in
>> in office floor space. >> Yes. So, we're going down from that
>> 40% less staff.
>> Uh, no. 40% less office space. Um so part of the move is to um move from a 1:1 ratio, everyone gets a desk, down to a 7:10 ratio, which reflects the fact that we now have a much more flexible working environment with staff working from home on number of days a week. So we don't need a desk every day of the week for every member of staff. So we're able to achieve a 40% reduction in leased floor space. And that and again, Miss Charles will correct me if I'm wrong, 39,153 m across four buildings at the moment, reducing to 23,500 m across two buildings under the new arrangement. >> Okay. >> Recognizing that the lease for One City Hill is yet to be finalized. um continue? Uh well, I think it's in enterprise agreements that people um are permitted to work from home with agreement from their manager. Um things will evolve over time, but I I think it's highly unlikely that we'll go back to the arrangement that we had pre-COVID where everybody turns up 5 days a week.
>> So, they're never coming back to the office under this arrangement.
>> Well, people are coming back to the office. They're coming back several days a week. But it would make it would be crazy for us to spend taxpayers money providing a desk for everybody 5 days a week if we think that a lesser number of people are likely to actually um show up every day. Um and so we think a cautious balanced approach is to say a 7 to10 ratio is the right way to go.
>> So how many nones staff are currently based working across the department city's offices?
>> Nones. So >> nones. So um we've got I've got CRA based staff at the moment 1,763. Um but of those
>> Charles uh that is correct the number um and if we take out um less 90 for SCES that will be
>> I'll give you the rough
senator secretary secretary very come on
>> I would say 1,800 sorry 67 got performance anxiety now >> um so it's 1,763 secretary that I didn't >> 1673 17.
and and from what I understand you to say that there will be that many staff desk spaces provided across the current camber accommodation in the city in Actton.
>> We will basically provide desks for
>> No, no, but what current? So we've got the non SCES staff >> number that secretary just calculated. and how many desk spaces currently are there across the the four?
>> So, currently across our four buildings, um, we have 2,416 work points,
>> right? 20,000. Sorry, say that again.
>> 24,416.
>> Okay, thank you. Work points. Okay. Um, do non SCES staff have their own allocated desk spaces at current
location? uh in some yes they do. Um some areas have already moved to a flexible work arrangement. Um
>> so hot desking or something
um and um but yes at the moment we are sitting at one to one desk.
>> So how many staff are to be accommodated in the new building?
>> So I can talk through work points in the new building. Yeah. >> Um so in total there will be approximately uh 1,524 work uh work points at stage one which is our seven London circuit. It's breaks down to 629 and there's roughly 895 in that will be in one city
>> in stage two. >> Um so how many non SCES staff will be allocated set desk spaces in the in these new arrangements in the 629. So we
are moving to flexible work um arrangements where there'll be bookable desks. However, staff with um WHS requirements or special needs will be allocated what we term anchored desks. So they'll be allocated permanent desks. >> And there are other staff for example maybe executive support staff and EAS that may have an anchor desk but that will be at the discretion of the relevant SCES officer about anchoring desks.
>> Okay. So, of the 629 for stage one, how many of those 629 will be anchor desks?
>> We haven't gone through that process as yet. We don't actually move in till um May, June, May of this year. Um we're still working with our business line areas about the floor plans and through that exercise we'll identify which desks will be anchored
>> and um will you be hot desking with your team >> or is it sort of a lot more fluid than that if best dressed you want you want the hot desk by the by the coffee machine or you want the hot desk by the window you better get in there at
>> so what we 9 a.m. What we do see is we're creating what we term neighborhoods. So our floors and groups will be allocated a neighborhood. Um all desks that aren't anchored will be bookable. Um so yeah staff staff will and we will be able to manage that through that process but um yeah staff will be won't will be colllocated based around their neighborhood.
>> Okay. Got it. um just to the consultation that's been had with staff about these new arrangements. Can I understand and unpack um what level of consultation you've had? We've gone through um in this committee uh culture uh and um their views on on various aspects at nauseium in this committee and um I know you're working hard to improve all those statistics. So what consultation have you had and what are staff's feedback to you?
>> So we've done quite extensive consultation throughout the process. um that includes the design and the delivery. And so they've had a staff have had a view in terms of everything from um our desk booking arrangements to the locker and storage systems and including the fit out and what the design of the floors.
>> What's a locker and storage system? So that that's if I want a pot plant and my kids photo.
>> So because we're moving to um bookable desks, every staff member will have a locker. So it's that locker system that will be in place where they will come in and put their stuff and move to their desk. Um so the the engagement with staff has comprised of things like staff surveys, interviews, we've done some benchmarking um discovery consultation, so quite extensive. We've also worked with our um employee networks um so our disability
>> How are your employee networks different to your staff?
>> They're a subset of our staff. So for instance there is a network for people with disability. So important that they are consulted and that the needs that they have in all their diversity are properly factored into our planning.
>> Okay. Excellent.
>> And we've also engaged with the CPSU reps and our departmental consultative committee. So
>> and what was the feed feedback has have staff expressed concern about this new
arrangement? Um so the the feedback has been around um the ensuring that the new building is fit for their needs and their requirements. So there have been things like um accessibility um that we've got genderneutral bathrooms, accessible workspaces, neurodeiverse friendly workspaces that the storage and the um personal lockers are usable and um fit their requirements. They've talked about the buildings, the facilities, end of trip facilities and how they're going to manage that workspace in terms of bookable offices and bookable desks. Um, so they've also looked at the health and well health and safety aspects, ergonomical equipment, how we're going to manage the anchored desk. So it's more around those. They've had a say in terms of the fit out and the design. So we've shared um information about the design and they've been it's sort of in some ways it's sort of been co-designed in terms of taking into their into account their feedback.
So with the booking system, if I want if I am a staff person that likes to sit in the same place and have my personal items uh around, um are you able to book a desk for months?
>> No, we are going to lock it down so that staff can't do that. Um we're also
>> Sorry, what did you say?
>> We're going to lock down the system so people can't book six months ahead and
book. You can't have a desk if you want
one. >> Well, you can have that desk on that. Um, so you go into the bookable system. We're still working out the parameters, but it might be locked down for a two or 3 week period. We are also asking um managers, it it's a bit of courtesy and respect in the workplace. And we are asking managers to um ensure that when we move to this system that there it's fair and equitable in terms of the allocation of deaths and that is a local um matter that we expect that area that branch that group that division to be managing.
>> How many lockers are going to be?
>> We will have sufficient lockers for
think there was 629 2,400 workbenches currently for 1,800 staff. >> So how many lockers in the new arrangement when you're planning to have 629?
>> There'll be enough. So we expect there will be 840 odd staff moving in to 7 London circuit. Each one of those staffs
This seems to be a system that is set up are in an arrangement where their flexible workplace means they're not permanently in the office. What about the staff in your employee who want to be permanently in the office? It seems as if they're being completely there's no choice about the culture of the office here. You can't just say this I want to be one of the people that is in the office four to five days a week. That's how I like to work and how I can be most productive. It seems that they're unable to do that under these arrangements. If that's the type of work worker they are,
>> they can absolutely do that, but they aren't necessarily guaranteed they're going to have the same desk 365 days a
>> It seems secretary, they can't even guarantee they can have the same desk month in month out, week in week out.
>> This is a pretty standard arrangement. When I was working in New South Wales government, you had deputy secretary sitting in an open plan environment with no
>> one's bagging out open plan environments, hot desking, flexible work arrangements. But to assume that every one of your thousands of employees has the same mindset, I think um is disappointing.
>> But but taxpayers money is being spent here and we need to make sure that we >> um invest in a way which reflects genuine attendance rates in the department on any given uh weekday and that we have the flexibility um to make the best use of the accommodation that we've got and get best value for money.
>> thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you
deputy chair. Thank you. Uh, look, thank you. I just might start where Senator McKenzie left off. Uh, I did have a look at the public works submission on the fit out um, at the new building. Um, and as we discussed earlier, it is above the public works committee range of $1,500 to $2,000 square meter. Um, did did the department ask for a quote within the $1,500 to $2,000 per square
Uh, Senator, I'll have to take that on notice.
>> Um, but we obviously ran a competitive process um for the person.
>> I understand that and it's not so much about the choice of the contractor per se, but I didn't see the submission. I don't think I couldn't see I couldn't read every word obviously, but I couldn't see a sort of plan B or a separate option being put forward that was below $2,413 per square meter. Was that the only >> who provided the quote to you? Is it
>> we're getting the details? Um the fit out costs are very standard for market rates, but we're just getting the details for you um from from the previous
>> I'm just wondering what's the point of having the public works committee do this range if you don't even try and meet it. >> I mean, maybe maybe the 2,400 was worth was value for money and worth it, but the struggle for me is how do I compare that? Well, like you're telling me you need it for these hybrid workspaces and all that, but it's all very vague. Um, >> Senator, we're in the process of
securing the information.
We'll get the information for you.
>> We'll go through the standard process of approvals, including through the
>> We'll get that. I've been on that committee and Yeah. Okay. Um, doesn't shouldn't absolve us from being able to scrutinize it as well. In that submission, I notice as um the submission of the public works committee on page 38 of the PDF, there's a rundown of all different types of things in the new spaces. It does say um it says all gender toilet and one on each level. >> So, are there no separate male or female toilets in this video?
>> Yes, there are.
>> There are. Okay.
>> Yes, that's in addition to
>> Sorry,
>> that is in addition to male and female toilet,
>> right? So, you've got three toilets. >> Okay. On each level.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. All right. Um Okay. Um moving back to the carbon values that I've got tabled now. Thank you for that. Um I just want to try and understand how these work. So the the on this table that's been tabled. Uh this financial year, what are we in 26 now? Time flies. The carbon value is $76 per ton in 2023. It grows to $377 per ton in 2050. I'm just trying to understand how these work in a practical sense when an infrastructure project does its discounted cash flow analysis. Is it got to apply these different carbon values for each year? So, say for example, if the benefits of the road or the use of um petrol in the in is happening in the year 2050, it's got to apply the $377 price to that carbon emissions in 2050.
>> Yeah, thank you, Senator. Um as as I understand it, um the application of values will basically match up with the um length of the the project.
>> Yeah. And they'd have to line up. So in 2050 that'd have to be a $377 per ton
>> We'll do our best to answer these questions. Obviously Infrastructure Australia on at 9:15. >> Yeah, I was going to say
>> I wanted to get I don't think I really got to them very much last time. We ran out of time as often happens. So on that table you've sent me it says a consistent approach to measuring direct, indirect and embodied emissions and that's all I'm really worried about. What is the difference between direct and indirect emissions for a typical infrastructure project like a road or a rail project?
>> Um I think as the secretary said um those questions on methodology should be um directed to infrastructure Australia.
>> But haven't these been agreed to by ministers?
>> Uh they have. Yes.
>> So why can't you answer me the question if the minister's agreed to this?
>> I'll just have to take that on notice. Senator,
>> the work has been done as we've explained by Infrastructure Australia. They're making time to come to talk to the committee this evening. I suggest
you take it. >> But they're an independent agency. >> My understanding is it's been decision this is a decision of government to apply these carbon values. Is that correct?
>> Yes. But the values were um developed by Infrastructure Australia,
>> right? Yes. But the decision to apply these values in decision making is a is a decision of government. It's not been something infrastructure Australia have just decided upon themselves. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Well, we'll come back to it then with trade, but they're very very large prices and going to have a big influence obviously on um benefit cost ratios. And then finally, back to the plants. Uh have you got that >> It been to Has it been table? Oh, okay. Sorry. I thought didn't know we were waiting for it to be tabled. Sorry, now have another
>> Senator I have the costs um the annual costs I don't have the FOI in front of me but I do have the costs
>> right
uh for financial year 2425 the costs were 52,49644 >> and then for July to November 2025 it was 12,19489
>> okay um if you go to that FOI that you should have now it's on conveniently it's still on the last page page 49 has that table that I was quoting earlier uh and there seems to be a uh $11,000 odd $105,000 increase in cost for indoor plants from 2223 to 2425
>> some of that increase is um due to plants in a new office that we have in Brisbane uh so that was the increase in terms of the costs in the CRA offices uh there's been a decline rather than an incline.
>> Well, if I look at Northworn Avenue, it was 10,400. It's gone up to 11,600. >> Alena Street's gone from $13,000 to $17,000. >> I'm not sure if that's quite correct what you just said. No. >> Philip Street, is that in Canberra?
>> Yeah, that's that's correct.
>> Gone from 4,800 to 5,300. >> So, do you want to just reflect on that
evidence? Yes, I take that one back and I'll double check that. Thank you.
>> All right. Okay. So, we got to the bottom of why they've why we've seen >> I mean, Alinga Street's gone up $4,000 in two years.
>> So, we'll take that one on notice,
Senator. >> All right. Okay. All right. Well, that's me done for corporate, I think. Anyone else?