DOCSLIB.ORG

Questions on Notice from Additional Estimates Hearing 22 February 2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Questions on Notice from Additional Estimates Hearing 22 February 2002 LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE EXAMINATION OF ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES 2001 – 2002 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION VOLUME 3 IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO Additional Information Relating to the Examination of Expenditure 2001 – 2002 May 2002 Attachments to Question Nos. 59, 72, 78 and 99 are not available electronically - please call the Secretariat on (02) 6277 3560 if you require copies. QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES HEARING: 19 and 22 February 2002 IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO (30) Output 1.3: Enforcement of Immigration Law Senator Ray (L&C 269) asked Senator Ellison to ask Mr Ruddock where he got confirmation on what he had been informed (on 7 October). Answer: Mr Ruddock’s office has advised that the Office of National Assessments (ONA) report was taken as confirmation of the Department’s advice on 7 October 2001 that children had been thrown overboard. No other advice, written or oral, was received to either confirm or refute the initial advice from the Taskforce and the subsequent ONA report. QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES HEARING: 19 and 22 February 2002 IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO (31) Output 1.3: Enforcement of Immigration Law Senator Cooney (L&C 230) asked, “ When these matters (28-day time limit to appeal to the Court) came on before the Court, did the Department take the bar as a defence to the action? Was the bar argued? Was the time limit argued in the court case?” Answer: Applications lodged outside the 28 day period are invalid and the Federal Court is unable to extend time by the terms of s477(2) of the Migration Act (previously s478(2)). There is no option in relation to the time limit. Under s477 compliance with the 28 day time limit is mandatory to effect a valid application to the Federal Court. It is not a “ defence” to establish whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction. The Federal Court is obliged to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction before proceeding to hear the substance of the review. If the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction, then it is simply not empowered to deal with the review application. The issue before the Federal Court in the 10 matters decided by Mansfield J on 1 August 2001 (leading matter Salehi v MIMA) was whether the applications were lodged outside the 28 day limit. The Court heard evidence as to why the applications were lodged outside the 28 day time limit. The Court accepted that under the then s478 of the Migration Act and upon reliance on existing binding authority, the Court was deprived of jurisdiction to deal with the applications as the 28 day limit was not met. The Court also held that s478(2) deprived it of any power to extend the 28 day time limit. Two of the 10 matters decided by Mansfield J on 1 August 2001 are currently on appeal in the Full Federal Court. QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES HEARING: 19 and 22 February 2002 IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO (32) Output 1.3: Enforcement of Immigration Law Senator McKiernan asked: In relation to the temporary processing centre in Darwin: (a) When was the decision made to construct this centre? (b) Who made that decision? (c) How was it constructed: Put out to tender or did Defence do it? (d) What was the cost? (e) Are there plans to landscape the area and plant some trees etc? (f) Has it been used? (g) What is the capacity? (h) A news report on 31/01/02 suggests that the next boatload of people to Darwin will be sent there, is that true? (i) When is it planned to be used? (j) If the Pacific solution is working, why not remove it? Answer: (a)-(b) The Government’s decision to establish contingency detention facilities including a reception centre at HMAS Coonawarra was announced on 23 August 2001. (c) Existing defence accommodation units were supplemented with demountable buildings from a former engineering camp near Collie, Western Australia. The work was undertaken as part of a larger contract for the construction of the Baxter IRPC near Port Augusta, South Australia. (d) While the centre is available for occupation there are minor works still being completed. The expenditure should total around $7.4m. (e) Yes. Fast growing shrubs and trees are being planted to provide visual screening along the Stuart Highway and Amy Johnson Drive frontages. (f) No. (g) Up to 650. (h)-(i) There are no current plans relating to the use of HMAS Coonawarra. HMAS Coonawarra is a contingency reception centre. Any use of the facility will be made at the time on the basis of operational requirements. (j) The Government will continue to ensure that it has contingency capacity to deal with any circumstances, now or in the future. QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES HEARING: 19 and 22 February 2002 IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO (33) Output 1.3: Enforcement of Immigration Law Senator McKiernan asked has DIMIA been using the pavilion at the showground to process illegal entrants? If so, • when was it last used? • How many times has it been used in the last 12 months? • How many people have been processed there? • How long does each processing procedure take at the showgrounds? Answer: DIMIA has been using the showground as a staging place when unlawful boat arrivals are disembarked in Darwin for onward travel to an Immigration Reception and Processing Centre elsewhere in Australia. It was last used in December 2001 for reception of a group of illegal fishermen. It has been used 15 times in the last 12 months. 1576 people have been processed there. Each processing procedure usually takes one day. Processing in this context covers basic reception issues only. QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES HEARING: 19 and 22 February 2002 IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO (34) Output 1.3 Enforcement of Immigration Law Senator McKiernan asked: In relation to the permanent centre in Darwin: • What was the amount stated in the 1999-2000 budget for the detention centre in Darwin? • How many people will that centre hold? • What stage is the planning at? • Have any plans been drawn up? • Who is involved in the planning of the Centre? • Have any locations for the Centre been identified? • How much of the $40 million has been spent? Can the Department provide a breakdown of what the money has been spent on? Answer: • The intention to establish an IRPC in Darwin was announced in the 2000-2001 Budget – pages 18 and 30 of the DIMA Portfolio Budget Statements 2000-01 refer. It was proposed that the new facility be financed through a private financing arrangement, and a capital injection of $3m in 2000-01. The rental stream for the proposed new facility would be financed by estimated lower operating costs for the Darwin facility. • The facility is intended to have core accommodation supporting up to 500 people on an ongoing basis and surge capacity for an additional 1500. • A design brief for the Darwin facility is nearing completion. • Designs have not been drawn up as yet. • The Detention Infrastructure Branch of DIMIA’s Offshore Centre Management & Infrastructure Division is responsible for coordinating the development of the facility. • A preferred site has been identified. • The Department has not determined a capital cost for the Darwin IRPC as designs have not yet been developed. Costs incurred on the project to date relate to legal, financial, strategic and probity advice and total some $108,000. QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES HEARING: 19 and 22 February 2002 IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO (35) Output 1.3: Enforcement of Immigration Law Senator McKiernan asked, ‘In an interview on the ABC Lateline on 29/01/02 the Minister said: “ When you want to establish detention centres, you go into a community and you say, would you like a detention centre in your district?” What consultation occurred in relation to the centre planned for Darwin? Who was involved? If no one was consulted, why did the Minister make this statement on ABC?’ Answer: The development of the Darwin Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (IRPC) was announced in Budget 2000. The Minister wrote to the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Mr Denis Burke, several NT Ministers, the Lord Mayor of Darwin and the Mayors of surrounding areas on 28 March 2001 advising that a search for a site for the new facility was about to begin and seeking their advice on potential locations for the facility. The Secretary, Mr Bill Farmer, wrote in similar terms on 23 April 2001 to senior officers in several Northern Territory Government Departments. Senior officials from the Department met with Northern Territory Government officials from several agencies and the Darwin City Lord Mayor on 8/9 May 2001. Subsequent meetings were conducted with Northern Territory Government officials over a number of months. In addition to the consultation that has already taken place between officials, on his recent trip to Darwin the Minister advised that he would seek further comment from the Northern Territory Government on the preferred site before a final decision is taken. The announcement of the preferred site will enable community views to be sought. The timing of that announcement has not yet been determined. QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES HEARING: 19 and 22 February 2002 IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO (36) Output 1.3: Enforcement of Immigration Law Senator McKiernan asked: In relation to the centre planned for Darwin: • When is it planned that this centre will open? • Who is expected to ensure the delivery of such services like education, health, safety and child protection? • What arrangements will be negotiated with the NT Government? • Will DIMIA be responsible for all costs as per Christmas Island? • Are there plans to re locate people from Woomera once the detention centre has been finalised? • Again, if the Pacific solution is working, why is there the need to continue with this proposal? Answer: The Government has not made a final decision on the timing of a new detention facility in Darwin.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plotting Darwin Harbour's Future Course
    SPECIAL REPORT ‘Lead me to the harbour!’ Plotting Darwin Harbour’s future course Dr John Coyne and Dr Teagan Westendorf S OF AS AR PI E S July 2021 Y T Y R T A T N E E G Y W T 2 0 1 01 - 20 2 About the authors Dr John Coyne is the head of the Northern Australia Strategic Policy Centre and head of the Strategic Policing and Law Enforcement program at ASPI. Dr Teagan Westendorf is the deputy head of the Northern Australia Strategic Policy Centre and an analyst with the Strategic Policing and Law Enforcement program at ASPI. Acknowledgement ASPI would like to acknowledge the Northern Territory Government’s ongoing sponsorship of and support for the Northern Australia Strategic Policy Centre. Without that support, reports such as this would not be possible. About ASPI The Australian Strategic Policy Institute was formed in 2001 as an independent, non‑partisan think tank. Its core aim is to provide the Australian Government with fresh ideas on Australia’s defence, security and strategic policy choices. ASPI is responsible for informing the public on a range of strategic issues, generating new thinking for government and harnessing strategic thinking internationally. ASPI’s sources of funding are identified in our Annual Report, online at www.aspi.org.au and in the acknowledgements section of individual publications. ASPI remains independent in the content of the research and in all editorial judgements. It is incorporated as a company, and is governed by a Council with broad membership. ASPI’s core values are collegiality, originality & innovation, quality & excellence and independence.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia's Naval Shipbuilding Enterprise
    AUSTRALIA’S NAVAL SHIPBUILDING ENTERPRISE Preparing for the 21st Century JOHN BIRKLER JOHN F. SCHANK MARK V. ARENA EDWARD G. KEATING JOEL B. PREDD JAMES BLACK IRINA DANESCU DAN JENKINS JAMES G. KALLIMANI GORDON T. LEE ROGER LOUGH ROBERT MURPHY DAVID NICHOLLS GIACOMO PERSI PAOLI DEBORAH PEETZ BRIAN PERKINSON JERRY M. SOLLINGER SHANE TIERNEY OBAID YOUNOSSI C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1093 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9029-4 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2015 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The Australian government will produce a new Defence White Paper in 2015 that will outline Australia’s strategic defense objectives and how those objectives will be achieved.
    [Show full text]
  • We Envy No Man on Earth Because We Fly. the Australian Fleet Air
    We Envy No Man On Earth Because We Fly. The Australian Fleet Air Arm: A Comparative Operational Study. This thesis is presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Murdoch University 2016 Sharron Lee Spargo BA (Hons) Murdoch University I declare that this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its main content work which has not previously been submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution. …………………………………………………………………………….. Abstract This thesis examines a small component of the Australian Navy, the Fleet Air Arm. Naval aviators have been contributing to Australian military history since 1914 but they remain relatively unheard of in the wider community and in some instances, in Australian military circles. Aviation within the maritime environment was, and remains, a versatile weapon in any modern navy but the struggle to initiate an aviation branch within the Royal Australian Navy was a protracted one. Finally coming into existence in 1947, the Australian Fleet Air Arm operated from the largest of all naval vessels in the post battle ship era; aircraft carriers. HMAS Albatross, Sydney, Vengeance and Melbourne carried, operated and fully maintained various fixed-wing aircraft and the naval personnel needed for operational deployments until 1982. These deployments included contributions to national and multinational combat, peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. With the Australian government’s decision not to replace the last of the aging aircraft carriers, HMAS Melbourne, in 1982, the survival of the Australian Fleet Air Arm, and its highly trained personnel, was in grave doubt. This was a major turning point for Australian Naval Aviation; these versatile flyers and the maintenance and technical crews who supported them retrained on rotary aircraft, or helicopters, and adapted to flight operations utilising small compact ships.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Department of Defence Annual Report 2001
    DEFENCE ANNUAL REPORT 2001-02 HEADLINE RESULTS FOR 2001-02 Operational S Defence met the Government’s highest priority tasks through: effectively contributing to the international coalition against terrorism playing a major role in assisting East Timor in its transition to independence strengthening Australia’s border security increasing the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) counter-terrorism capability providing substantial assistance to the Bougainville and Solomon Islands’ peace processes supporting civil agencies in curbing illegal fishing in Australian waters. S The ADF was at its highest level of activity since the Vietnam war. Social S 86 per cent of Australians said they were proud of the ADF – the highest figure recorded over the past 20 years. 85 per cent believed the ADF is effective and 87 per cent considered the ADF is well trained. Unacceptable behaviour in the ADF continued to be the community’s largest single concern. (Defence community attitudes tracking, April 2002) S ADF recruiting: Enlistments were up, Separations were down, Army Reserve retention rates were the highest for 40 years. S The new principles-based civilian certified agreement formally recognised a balance between employees’ work and private commitments. S Intake of 199 graduate trainees was highest ever. S Defence was awarded the Australian Public Sector Diversity Award for 2001. HEADLINE RESULTS FOR 2001-02 Financial S Defence recorded a net surplus of $4,410 million (before the Capital Use Charge of $4,634 million), when compared to the revised budget estimate of $4,772 million. S The net asset position is $45,589 million, an increase of $1,319 million or 3% over 2000-01.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Women (WRANS-RAN) Qld February 2019 Volume XX 1St Edition OPENING of MEMORIAL GARDEN at HMAS MORETON VP, DIANA BURNS UNVEILS OUR PLAQUE
    Navy Women (WRANS-RAN) Qld February 2019 Volume XX 1st Edition OPENING OF MEMORIAL GARDEN AT HMAS MORETON VP, DIANA BURNS UNVEILS OUR PLAQUE In August 2018, President Jenny Rathbone, alongside the representatives of other exNavy organisations, planted a tree in a hedge which formed the backdrop for a native gar- den which was to be dedicated to the former Commanding Officer Navy Headquarters South Queensland. Close to one hundred people gathered at an opening and dedication of the CMDR Lachlan King Memorial garden at HMAS Moreton on 30 January. CMDR King died after a brave fight against cancer in 2013. His mother, Mrs Pamela King, was present to unveil, with Commanding Officer HMAS Cap- tain Mark McConnell, the Memorial Stone. Representatives of several or- ganisations associated with Navy simultaneously unveiled their organisa- tion’s plaques which were set onto stones retrieved from the old submarine wharf which abutted the riverside at the Bulimba where HMAS Moreton now stands. Navy Women Vice President, Diana Burns, unveiled the plaque commemorating Navy Women’s part in the provision of the garden. Links from the old wharf cables have been incorporated into scattered bench seats topped with wharf tim- bers. An artwork sym- bolising a propeller was also created from the huge chain links. Aluminium pillars display the Sailor’s Ode and the Submariner’s Prayer. The garden serves to screen the not very aesthetically pleasing sheds but also creates a space where staff can relax away from their work environment. The theme of the garden is ‘Reflection and Protection’, ac- knowledging those that lead, care for and support those that have served, are serving or may serve under the Aus- tralian White Ensign.
    [Show full text]
  • Prewett and the Department of Defence [2020] DHAAT 01 (23 January 2020)
    Prewett and the Department of Defence [2020] DHAAT 01 (23 January 2020) File Number 2018/041 Re Mrs Judith Prewett (nee Stewart) Applicant And Department of Defence Respondent Tribunal Ms Jane Schwager AO (Presiding Member) Air Vice-Marshal John Quaife AM (Retd) Ms Jo Lumb Hearing Date 28 November 2019 DECISION On 23 January 2020 the Tribunal decided to affirm the decision of the Directorate of Honours and Awards of the Department of Defence that Mrs Judith Prewett is not eligible for the award of the Australian Defence Medal. CATCHWORDS DEFENCE AWARD – Australian Defence Medal – neither initial enlistment period nor minimum period of service met – discharge at own request - whether early discharge due to a prevailing discriminatory Defence policy. LEGISLATION Defence Act 1903 – Part VIIIC – Sections 110T, 110V, 110VB(2). Defence Regulation 2016, Section 36. Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S48, Letters Patent and Regulations for the Australian Defence Medal, dated 30 March 2006. REASONS FOR DECISION Background 1. On 23 November 2016, the Applicant, Mrs Judith Ann Prewett (nee Stewart) applied to the Directorate of Honours and Awards of the Department of Defence (the Directorate) for the Australian Defence Medal (ADM). On 27 September 2018, she was advised in a letter from Mr Mark Jordan of the Directorate that she was not eligible for this award. On 19 September 2018, Mrs Prewett applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.1 Mrs Prewett included with her application a copy of Mr Jordan’s letter and a further letter of 2 August 2017 from Ms N. Shingles of the Directorate.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Official Hansard No
    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Senate Official Hansard No. 14, 2005 WEDNESDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2005 FORTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FOURTH PERIOD BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE INTERNET The Journals for the Senate are available at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/work/journals/index.htm Proof and Official Hansards for the House of Representatives, the Senate and committee hearings are available at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard For searching purposes use http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au SITTING DAYS—2005 Month Date February 8, 9, 10 March 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 May 10, 11, 12 June 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23 August 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 September 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 October 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 November 7, 8, 9, 10, 28, 29, 30 December 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 RADIO BROADCASTS Broadcasts of proceedings of the Parliament can be heard on the following Parliamentary and News Network radio stations, in the areas identified. CANBERRA 103.9 FM SYDNEY 630 AM NEWCASTLE 1458 AM GOSFORD 98.1 FM BRISBANE 936 AM GOLD COAST 95.7 FM MELBOURNE 1026 AM ADELAIDE 972 AM PERTH 585 AM HOBART 747 AM NORTHERN TASMANIA 92.5 FM DARWIN 102.5 FM FORTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FOURTH PERIOD Governor-General His Excellency Major-General Michael Jeffery, Companion in the Order of Australia, Com- mander of the Royal Victorian Order, Military Cross Senate Officeholders President—Senator the Hon. Paul Henry Calvert Deputy President and Chairman of Committees—Senator John Joseph Hogg Temporary Chairmen of Committees—Senators Guy Barnett, George Henry Brandis, Hedley Grant Pearson Chapman, Patricia Margaret Crossin, Alan Baird Ferguson, Michael George Forshaw, Stephen Patrick Hutchins, Linda Jean Kirk, Philip Ross Lightfoot, Gavin Mark Mar- shall, Claire Mary Moore, Andrew James Marshall Murray, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for the 4Th Awd Hmas Melbourne (Iv) Sinking
    APR-JUN 2013 VOL 75 No2 AUSTRALIAN NAVAL BASES RETURN BRITANNIA MARTIME TERRORISM WHO SANK 1-178? THE CASE FOR THE 4TH AWD SINKING HMAS MELBOURNE (IV) SHIPS THE LCHS - HEAVY LIFTING FOR FOUR DECADES WAR IN THE SOUTHERN LATITUDES $5.95 AUSTRALIA’s LEADING NAVAL MAGAZINE SINCE 1938 INCL. GST Pac2013 Navy mag advert 23/11/12 10:00 AM Page 1 THE COMMERCIAL MARITIME AND NAVAL DEFENCE SHOWCASE FOR THE ASIA PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL MARITIME EXPOSITION 7 - 9 OCTOBER 2013 SYDNEY CONVENTION AND EXHIBITION CENTRE, AUSTRALIA www.pacific2013.com.au in conjunction with 1913 - 2013 SYDNEY HARBOUR, AUSTRALIA www.navy.gov.au/ifr AUSTRALIAN SALES TEAM Bob Wouda T: +61 (0) 3 5282 0538 M: +61 (0) 418 143 290 E: [email protected] Penny Haines T: +61 (0) 3 5282 0535 M: +61 (0) 407 824 400 E: [email protected] Kay McLaglen T: +61 (0) 3 5282 0502 M: +61(0) 417 011 982 E: [email protected] Volume 75 No.2 THE MAGAZINE OF THE NAVY LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COUNCIL SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DIVISION Patron in Chief: Her Excellency, Patron: His Excellency, The Governor General. The Governor of South Australia. President: Graham M Harris, RFD President: Dean Watson, RFD Senior Vice-President: Rear Admiral Hon. Secretary: Miss J E Gill 05 THE CASE FOR THE 4TH AWD DG Holthouse, AO, RAN (Rtd) PO Box 3008, Unley, SA 5061 Telephone: (08) 8272 6435 Vice-Presidents: HMAS MELBOURNE (IV) LCDR Roger Blythman, RFD, TASMANIAN DIVISION By Dr Roger Thornhill John Jeremy Patron: CDRE Malcolm Baird RAN (Rtd) Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Bombing of Darwin & Military History Advisory
    AGENDA BOMBING OF DARWIN & MILITARY HISTORY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 11.00 - 12.00 pm, Wednesday 12 June 2019 Meeting Room 1, City of Darwin 1. MEMBERS The Hon Kon Vatskalis The Right Worshipful, The Lord Mayor (Chair) Alderman Andrew Arthur Alderman Gary Haslett Alternate Mr Stephen Gloster RSL Mr Tony Simons Aviation Historical Society of the NT President Mr Norm Cramp Darwin Military Museum Manager Mr Michael Wells Department of Tourism, Sport and Culture, Director Heritage Branch Ms Meg Cotter Tourism NT Trade and Industry Marketing Executive Ms Meghan Bailey Department of Veterans’ Affairs Deputy Commissioner NT Ms Michelle Carter Tourism Top End Mrs Linda Fazldeen Defence NT, Director Community Engagement, Department of Trade, Business and Innovation Ms Sheree Jeeves City of Darwin Manager Engagement and Events Ms Polly Banks City of Darwin General Manager Community and Regulatory Services City of Darwin Staff Ms Kylie Salisbury Community Events Producer Mrs Karen Long Executive Assistant Guests Major Willem Schoombie Mr Don Spinks Incoming DVA Commissioner visiting Darwin 2. APOLOGIES 3. DECLARATION OF INTEREST IN ANY ITEMS ON THE AGENDA 4. ACCEPTANCE OF PREVIOUS MINUTES 10 APRIL 2019 - Attachment A 5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES 10 APRIL 2019 Item 6.3 Members’ Update - Thank You For Your Service’ photographic exhibition – copy of letter forwarded to the Department of Veterans Affairs expressing interest in the exhibition coming to Darwin and response from the Department, Attachment B. Page - 2 - Agenda Bombing of Darwin & Military History Advisory Committee 12/06/2019 6. GENERAL BUSINESS 6.1 Community Events Producer – Kylie Salisbury 6.1.1 Upcoming events Saturday 10 August 2019, 10-11am Freedom of Entry Parade HMAS Coonawarra Civic Centre to Cenotaph 6.1.2 Cecil Ernest Northover medals and memorabilia 6.2 Members’ Update 6.3 Changes to Australia’s heritage protection law – Attachment C For Information Only 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Suburb Postcode State Zone Port Code Acton 2601 Act 32
    SUBURB POSTCODE STATE ZONE PORT CODE ACTON 2601 ACT 32 ACT AINSLIE 2602 ACT 32 ACT AMAROO 2914 ACT 32 ACT ARANDA 2614 ACT 32 ACT AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL 2600 ACT 32 ACT BANKS 2906 ACT 32 ACT BARKER CENTRE 2603 ACT 32 ACT BARTON 2600 ACT 32 ACT BELCONNEN 2617 ACT 32 ACT BIMBERI 2611 ACT 32 ACT BLACK MOUNTAIN 2601 ACT 32 ACT BONNER 2914 ACT 32 ACT BONYTHON 2905 ACT 32 ACT BOOROOMBA 2620 ACT 32 ACT BRADDON 2612 ACT 32 ACT BRINDABELLA 2611 ACT 32 ACT BRUCE 2617 ACT 32 ACT BURBONG 2620 ACT 32 ACT BURRA 2620 ACT 32 ACT SUBURB POSTCODE STATE ZONE PORT CODE BURRA CREEK 2620 ACT 32 ACT CALWELL 2905 ACT 32 ACT CAMPBELL 2612 ACT 32 ACT CANBERRA 2600 ACT 32 ACT CANBERRA 2600 ACT 32 ACT CANBERRA DEPOT 2911 ACT 32 ACT CAPITAL HILL 2600 ACT 32 ACT CARWOOLA 2620 ACT 32 ACT CASEY 2913 ACT 32 ACT CASUARINA SANDS 2611 ACT 32 ACT CAUSEWAY 2604 ACT 32 ACT CHAPMAN 2611 ACT 32 ACT CHARNWOOD 2615 ACT 32 ACT CHIFLEY 2606 ACT 32 ACT CHISHOLM 2905 ACT 32 ACT CIVIC 2608 ACT 32 ACT CIVIC SQUARE 2608 ACT 32 ACT CLEAR RANGE 2620 ACT 32 ACT CONDER 2906 ACT 32 ACT SUBURB POSTCODE STATE ZONE PORT CODE COOK 2614 ACT 32 ACT COOLEMAN 2611 ACT 32 ACT COOMBS 2611 ACT 32 CORIN DAM 2620 ACT 32 ACT COTTER RIVER 2611 ACT 32 ACT CRACE 2911 ACT 32 ACT CRESTWOOD 2620 ACT 32 ACT CUPPACUMBALONG 2620 ACT 32 ACT CURTIN 2605 ACT 32 ACT DEAKIN 2600 ACT 32 ACT DEAKIN WEST 2600 ACT 32 ACT DICKSON 2602 ACT 32 ACT DODSWORTH 2620 ACT 32 ACT DOWNER 2602 ACT 32 ACT DUFFY 2611 ACT 32 ACT DUNLOP 2615 ACT 32 ACT DUNTROON 2600 ACT 32 ACT ENVIRONA 2620 ACT 32 ACT ERINDALE CENTRE 2903 ACT 32 ACT SUBURB
    [Show full text]
  • Headmark 115 Summer 2005
    Journal of the Australian Naval Institute Summer 2005 AUSTRALIAN NAVAL INSTITUTE The Australian Naval Institute was formed as a self-supporting and non-profit making organisation; incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory in 1975. The main objectives of the Institute are: • to encourage and promote the advancement of knowledge related to the Navy and the maritime profession; and • to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas concerning subjects related to the Navy and the maritime profession. Membership subscription rates are located on the inside back cover of the Journal. Further information can be obtained from the Business Manager, Australian Naval Institute, PO Box 29, Red Hill ACT 2603, ph +61 2 62950056, fax +61 2 62953367, email: a n i(S),bigpond,com. or via the website at www.navalinstitute.com.au. Sponsors The Australian Naval Institute is grateful for the continued support of: Raytheon Australia, LOPAC, SAAB Systems Australia, Australian Defence Credit Union, Thales Underwater Systems, P&O Maritime Services, and Jacobs Sverdrup. Patron name the Editor must be advised either in person or in Chief of Navy VADM Chris Ritchie, AO RAN writing of the identity of the individual that wishes to use the pen name. The Editor will confirm in writing to the Council Members member seeking to use a pen name that the name has been President RADM Rowan Moffitt, AM RAN registered and can be used. More details are available on Vice President CAPT Gerry Christian, RAN the Institute's website. Secretary CMDR Lachlan Ring, RAN Style Guide. Articles and correspondence should be Treasurer LCDR Craig Opie, RAN submitted electronically in Microsoft Word, with limited Journal Editor Mr Andrew Forbes formaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Policy, Regulatory, Taxation, Administrative and Funding Pr
    Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Policy, regulatory, taxation, administrative and funding priorities for Australian shipping – 09 September 2020 ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE Department of Defence Topic: SRRAT - Q1 - 09 September 2020 - Requisition of Australian Flagged Vessels in a crisis - Sterle Question reference number: 1 Senator/Member: Glenn Sterle Type of question: Spoken Date set by the committee for the return of answer: 25 September 2020 Question: CHAIR: Alright. This is a question for Defence: can the department requisition a ship for use in a crisis if it is not an Australian flagged vessel? Air Marshal McDonald: We'd have to take that on notice. Answer: A vessel flagged to a foreign state is principally subject to the laws of that foreign state. It would be unlawful for Australian authorities (including Defence/ADF) to interfere with any foreign flagged vessels, including requisitioning or commandeering a vessel, without the consent of the ship’s owner or master unless Australian authorities reasonably suspected that the vessel was contravening an Australian law, within a maritime zone in which jurisdiction might be invoked (eg. territorial sea of Australia). The Commonwealth may, however, negotiate commercial agreements with the owners of a foreign flagged ship to secure its services. Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Policy, regulatory, taxation, administrative and funding priorities for Australian shipping – 09 September 2020 ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE
    [Show full text]