COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

SENATE Official Committee Hansard

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLA- TION COMMITTEE

Consideration of Estimates

WEDNESDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 1997

CANBERRA

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA 1997 INTERNET The Proof and Official Hansards of the Senate and the House of Representatives debates, and the Proof and Official Hansards of committee hearings are available on the Internet http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 12 NOVEMBER

Parliament ...... 235 Department of The Senate ...... 236 Joint House Department ...... 258 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet— Program 2—Government support services— Subprogram 2.1—Machinery of government ...... 344 Subprogram 2.1.2—Government Business ...... 346 Program 3—Corporate Services ...... 348 Program 1—Departmental policy coordination— Subprogram 1.1—Economic and industry policy ...... 349 Subprogram 1.2.2—Status of women ...... 361 Subprogram 1.2.3—Indigenous Affairs ...... 368 Program 7—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs ...... 381 Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 235

SENATE Wednesday, 12 November 1997 FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Portfolios: Parliament; Prime Minister and Cabinet; Finance and Administration Members: Senator Gibson (Chair), Senator Murray (Deputy Chair), Senators Heffernan, Lundy, Ray and Watson

The committee met at 9.05 a.m. PARLIAMENT Proposed expenditure, $416,000 (Document B) In Attendance Senator the Honourable Margaret Reid, President of the Senate Department of the Senate— Mr Harry Evans, Clerk of the Senate Ms Anne Lynch, Deputy Clerk of the Senate Mr Cleaver Elliott, Clerk Assistant (Committees) Dr Rosemary Laing, Clerk-Assistant (Procedure) Mr Peter O’Keeffe, Clerk Assistant (Corporate Management) Mr John Vander Wyk, Clerk Assistant (Table) Mr Robert Alison, Usher of the Black Rod Mr Graeme Nankervis, Director, Financial Management Ms Gabrielle Avery, Acting Director, Human Resource Management Joint House Department— Mr Michael Bolton, Secretary Mr Robert Wedgwood, Assistant Secretary, Building Management Mr Fraser Bradley, Assistant Secretary, Business Services Mr Adrian Guilfoyle, Chief Engineer Mr Michael Laugesen, Director, Financial Resources Mr Peter Richardson, Director, Facilities Mr John Rankin, Assistant Secretary, Building Management Department of Finance— Mr Bernie Hackett, Assistant Director, Central Agencies and Parliament Branch

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 236 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

CHAIR—I declare open this public meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. On 30 October 1997 the following documents were referred to the committee for examination and report: particulars of proposed additional expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending 30 June 1998, particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending 30 June 1998, particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1998, final budget outcome for 1996-97, and provision for running cost borrowings. The committee is required to consider the proposed expenditure, the provisions for running costs, the final budget outcome with respect to the parliamentary departments, the Prime Minister’s portfolio and the finance and administration portfolio and to report on or before 26 November this year. The committee will fix the date for the submission of written answers to questions taken on notice and the date of any supplementary hearing that may be required. We commence today with the Department of the Senate, followed by the Joint House Department. The parliamentary departments will be followed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, including ATSIC. We will proceed in the order as listed on the program circulated, concluding with ATSIC this evening. The Department of Finance and Administra- tion will be examined on Friday, 14 November. I propose to proceed by calling on the programs or subprograms as listed in the detailed program. [9.06 a.m.] DEPARTMENT OF THE SENATE CHAIR—I welcome the President and officers from the Department of the Senate. Do you have an opening statement that you would like to make? The PRESIDENT—No. CHAIR—Any questions? Senator ROBERT RAY—Can I go to the KPMG report and some issues associated with that? Firstly, we will go to the methodology because I think there has been a misunderstanding in the public at least via the press. As I understand, the process is a reconciled travel allowance and movement and where there is no actual evidence they then query the senator simply on the basis that they do not have any evidence. Is that right? Mr Evans—That is correct, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—So any reports that there may have been 20 or 30 senators with unreconciled claims is really the problem at the administration end initially. Mr Evans—That is certainly the view that is taken. The view that is taken initially is that there is probably something wrong with the records of movement. Senator ROBERT RAY—Then the process is for the senator concerned to explain and give some evidence in return to justify their claim. Mr Evans—Yes, that is correct, if the senator has any. It is appreciated that senators may not necessarily have all the records available to them to do that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Then if it is unresolved I guess there are two possibilities: one is that a senator may have made a mistake and would repay. That would be one. The PRESIDENT—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—The second one would be that someone has to make a judgment as to whether the claim was valid or not if there is no repayment.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 237

Mr Evans—The third possibility is that the records of movement are still defective and no conclusion can be drawn about the claim at all. Senator ROBERT RAY—I suppose a fourth option is that there will be a benchmark put in to say if there was anything systemic in the claims that could not be proven. Mr Evans—Exactly. If there were a pattern of discrepancies that would be significant. Senator ROBERT RAY—I guess the hard question, and the only other one in this specific area, is: where do you set that benchmark, Madam President? The PRESIDENT—My inclination would be to trust people, but it probably needs to be set somewhat more firmly than that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Somewhere just into double figures per year would tend to lead you from the accidental to the systemic problems at least, if not intent. The PRESIDENT—I think that is a bit hard to say. Mr Evans—We will not be asking the President to make that judgment. We will be looking at it as a department and attempting to make some judgment about that. Senator ROBERT RAY—When you wrote to us about this initially, Mr Evans, you indicated that the 1996-97 audit, the first letters either giving a correct weight or further quer- ies, would be in by September. That has not occurred, has it? Mr Evans—No. Senator ROBERT RAY—Can we have an explanation as to why? Mr Evans—Simply that the process is taking longer than was estimated at that time. Senator ROBERT RAY—It has been nothing to do with the absolute shambles and the abolished Administrative Services and sacking of hundreds of people? Mr Evans—No, it has not really had any connection with that. It is a matter of looking at the records of actual movement—that is, KPMG, in the first instance, putting together all the records of actual movement. Senator ROBERT RAY—When would you expect the 1996-97 period to be finalised, which will be your last involvement, I take it, because it has been moved to DoFA? Mr Evans—Yes, because it has been transferred. Do we have an estimate on when that might be? Mr O’Keeffe—We think that the reconciliation will probably be finished before the end of December. In other words, KPMG will have done their first reconciliation and second reconciliation, in a sense a series of reconciliations, to remove errors and so on, and before the end of December presented us with an indication of the senators who may have to be written to for further explanation. That sort of timetable would lead to the tabling of a final report normally in February but, because of the convention probably, early March. Senator ROBERT RAY—So if there is anything wrong you will let us know right in the middle of our holiday period—thanks for that. Mr Evans—I did not think senators ever took holidays. Senator COONEY—Can I ask some questions arising out of that—apropos your financial management. It says on page 88 of your annual report: Six internal audits were conducted during 1996-97 by the department’s contracted internal auditor, KPMG. The reports found that the departmental systems examined were generally operating at an efficient and effective level.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 238 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Is it still the position that financial management was operating at an efficient and effective level? Mr Evans—Yes. Senator COONEY—On page 89 it states: Senators’ satisfaction with the services provided by the financial management section remained high. Mr Evans—That was indicated by the survey of senators. Senator COONEY—I suppose the issue of travel allowances is still alive to the extent that it was sent off to DAS but has ended up with Finance. Do you get the feeling that you are not going to have the level of advice we used to get from within the Senate department from Finance? If you prefer not to answer the question, don’t. Mr Evans—As I have pointed out before, the information on which travel allowance payments will be based still has to come from this department. So there will be a disconnection, if you like, between the body that has information and the body that is actually doing the paying which may cause some problems. Senator COONEY—I wonder whether we will have somebody—and I should not mention anyone in particular—like Tony Styles, who was always very good, in the finance management department to help us over our difficulties? Mr Evans—I suppose Tony Styles might be poached by somebody. That may be a source of difficulty. That is as far as I can go. The people who actually have the information and who are dealing with the information on which the payments are based are not the people who are actually making the payments. As I say, that may cause some difficulty in the future. Senator ROBERT RAY—Can I finalise my questions on this area. I think Mr O’Keefe indicated that there will be final publication in the parliament of how all these issues are resolved. Is that right? Mr O’Keeffe—Yes, we would be recommending the tabling of such a report. Senator ROBERT RAY—Because you commissioned the report? Mr O’Keeffe—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Madam President, why did the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, and then the following morning Mr Reith pre-empt you and tell everyone that the government is going to publish these KPMG reports? The PRESIDENT—I imagine that was ignorance on their part as to who had commissioned them. Senator ROBERT RAY—Knowing you, you would have put that reprimand through. The PRESIDENT—I did communicate with each of them. Senator ROBERT RAY—That is all I have on that area. Senator FAULKNER—Could I ask Madam President or the Clerk, whoever can let me know, whether there are any costs relating to the new arrangements for travel which are being borne by the Department of the Senate—firstly, in relation to the Jetset travel contract? Mr Evans—That is to the extent that the Senate department is still making travel arrangements for senators which are not made by Jetset, in particular in relation to car bookings. Senator FAULKNER—In relation to the actual facility where Jetset is operating from in the building, are there any issues there relating to foregone rent, for example?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 239

Mr Evans—That facility is leased by Jetset. The leasing arrangement is handled by the Joint House Department. Mr Alison may be able to add something to that. Mr Alison—I understand from the Joint House Department that the Joint House Department has a commercial contract with Jetset for the lease of that former transport office. Senator FAULKNER—Mr Alison, you might be able to assist us. In relation to the actual Department of the Senate itself, are there any other costs—whether they be in incidental staffing, administration, utilities, refurbishment of offices and the like—that are being borne by the Department of the Senate? Mr Alison—This question was raised at the last estimates hearings. The Department of the Senate met the cost of the repainting and carpeting of the transport office. That would have occurred whether Jetset had moved in or not. We will continue, as Mr Evans said, to staff the Senate transport office at a lower level for as long as is necessary mainly to arrange shuttle cars, as they are known, for senators. Senator FAULKNER—So I am absolutely clear, can you outline what your full responsibilities are in relation to the shuttle service? Mr Alison—The Senate department will arrange shuttle cars. We make bookings with Comcar to have a certain number of cars here at Parliament House at certain times or at the airport on Sunday evenings. Senator FAULKNER—Again, I think this has been touched on before, but what about the actual costs of the shuttle service? Mr Alison—They are met by the now Department of Finance and Administration. Senator ROBERT RAY—That is DoFA for short. Senator FAULKNER—Yes. I wondered who would get that in first. Was it originally envisaged that the shuttle service would be part of the Jetset contract? Mr Alison—Do you mean meeting the cost or the booking of it? Senator FAULKNER—You could address either aspect in your answer. Mr Alison—Right. It is fair to say that we, the Department of the Senate, attempted to have Jetset do it. It was made very clear that they would not do it. Senator COONEY—Was it the impression of the Department of the Senate that Jetset would provide not only shuttle services but also transport services by car? Was that the impression that the Department of the Senate had? Mr Alison—As we understood it, at the beginning of our discussions with the then Department of Administrative Services, that department was to take over, through a contractor, travel arrangements for senators and members. We assumed from that that it also meant, naturally, the operation of the Comcar shuttle. Senator COONEY—There has been talk, and I know it went around amongst the senators that Jetset would book you a car from new Parliament House to Old Parliament House or from here to London by plane. You just had to ring the one number. Was that talk you heard of? Mr Alison—That was our understanding at the beginning of the discussions. Senator FAULKNER—Can you explain to us how formal your negotiations were with Jetset on the issue of the operation of the shuttle service?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 240 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Alison—I might say that the Department of the Senate did not have formal arrangements with Jetset. We had discussions with the then Department of Administrative Services who were developing their contract with Jetset. Senator COONEY—What concerns me is that people do arrange the shuttles for us and do it, I think, with great politeness and efficiency, led by Bruce Greentree. Where they are presently housed seems fairly sparse territory. Do we have any ability to do something about their accommodation? The PRESIDENT—Any other space that they would be provided with would be a long way from the shuttle and far less convenient for senators. Senator COONEY—Madam President, I know you and the Clerk are very conscious of taking good care of the people that work for us. I was just wondering whether we could do any better than that, but I do not think we can by the sound of things. The PRESIDENT—I do not believe so—nowhere near the shuttle or the point at which senators leave the building. Senator COONEY—I know Jetset now has that room leased, and that is the end of it. I was wondering, and this arises out of the questions we have asked, what the actual need is to have Jetset in that particular room as distinct from somewhere else. Given the work they have to do, there does not seem to be any reason why Jetset should be located where they are. There is a reason why the shuttle should be. You walk out there, or walk in, say goodnight and ask for a car then and ask for a car for the four o’clock swim in the morning and that sort of thing. The PRESIDENT—Space in the building is at a premium. To my knowledge, there is not any vacant space, really. Is there? Mr Evans—I think Senator Cooney has a valid point as to whether Jetset needs to be right near the entrance. Probably that is not necessary. The Department of the Senate was somewhat gazumped, if you like, in that area because that space was offered to them before we were asked about it. Senator COONEY—I do not want your comment on this, unless you want to make it, but it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that the understanding was—and this is what I took Senator Faulkner to be asking—that Jetset were put there because they were going to arrange all transport including the cars, so that you could just wander out of your room and go around there, get your car and book your plane to New York, all at once on the way out of a night. Then, suddenly that impression proved to be wrong and part of the supposed deal—it was not part of the deal—that required them to be there disappeared. The PRESIDENT—The minister originally said that it would be a one-stop shop. But I am not sure that there ever would have been a shuttle run from there and I think most senators value the shuttle. The arrangement for them for booking cars would have applied, I think, for coming and going from this building as well. Senator COONEY—Anyhow, as I understand it, the arrangements were not made through the Senate but through DAS, as it then existed, with Jetset. The PRESIDENT—Yes. Mr Evans—Yes, that is right.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 241

Senator MURRAY—Mr Evans, you just said that the room was offered to Jetset before the Department of the Senate was asked about it. Who offered it to them before you were consulted? Mr Evans—It is not entirely clear, but I think someone on the other side of the building, if I can put it that way. It seemed to be an assumption which emerged that they would be getting that space before we actually had a chance to discuss it. The PRESIDENT—It was because of the one-stop shop concept. I think it was perceived that the transport offices on each side were the obvious place for them to be so that senators and members had access for all of their travel needs. Senator MURRAY—Madam President, I presume the clerk implies a minister or someone from the minister’s office, or someone from the House of Representatives Department. Were you aware that they had offered areas under Senate control prior to consultation with yourself or with the clerk? The PRESIDENT—No. Senator MURRAY—Did you raise any objection to such a process, or such a breach of— The PRESIDENT—I had a couple of meetings with the minister about aspects of it and lack of consultation about what was occurring. Senator MURRAY—Is this the sort of thing that the Senate should submit to, this kind of governance from the alternative house? The PRESIDENT—I do not think it is fair to say, ‘from the alternative house’. I do not think that is what it was. I think it was from the minister; that is not the same thing. Senator MURRAY—No, it isn’t. But it is not the sort of thing the Senate would normally accede to lightly, I wouldn’t have thought. The PRESIDENT—No, I agree. There ought to have been greater consultation, I think, on what occurred. Senator MURRAY—I presume your attitude would be that it does not constitute a precedent? The PRESIDENT—It does not. Senator MURRAY—Mr Evans, I want to move on to another area, if I may. Do you want to wrap this one up? CHAIR—Is it still a general one or will we actually move on to the programs? Senator MURRAY—It is under the same Department of the Senate area. Senator ROBERT RAY—We are talking about the transport area downstairs. Senator MURRAY—You can stay with it, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Who gets the revenue from renting it out? Mr Evans—The Joint House Department collects the revenue on behalf of the Common- wealth; I think that is the correct situation. Senator ROBERT RAY—And it is just returned directly to the Commonwealth? It is not part of a trust or anything else? Mr Evans—No, I don’t believe so. I understand the Joint House Department will be appearing before you later. You could check the details with them.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 242 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—I am just wondering why, if the rent is collected by another department, for whatever purpose, that other department is not the one that does the renovating down there? Mr Evans—I think, as Mr Alison has indicated, the renovations were something that we were going to do, and would have been doing anyway if our transport offices had stayed there. Senator ROBERT RAY—But the obvious question is: if you knew it was going, why not save them the cost of renovating it and put it on the new tenant or the new body renting it out? Mr Evans—I asked that question myself, but Mr Alison is so efficient he gets on and does these things before people even know they are happening. When I passed by the office and saw it was being renovated I asked the question: ‘Shouldn’t Jetset be paying for that?’ Senator FAULKNER—Do you have a minor work schedule, Mr Alison, and this was on the minor work schedule? Mr Alison—That is correct. Senator COONEY—A lot of this might come out of the very vague edges there are as to where responsibilities of different departments lie—where the Senate’s responsibilities lie, where the responsibility of DAS, as it used to be, lies, and Joint House and so on. Do we have a coloured chart with tight lines drawn between who does what? Mr Evans—I think the fact that the Joint House Department handles the leasing is an example of the parliamentary departments rationalising their operations by having some departments perform functions on behalf of all departments. Because the Joint House Department handles the leasing of the retail spaces, for instance, it is accepted that they are the people to deal with leasing out of spaces, so they handle it on behalf of all the departments. Senator COONEY—I suppose there is always a danger that efficiency and competition between departments might start to overcome the idea that we ought to get service no matter where it comes from. The PRESIDENT—I think generally the departments work together very well and efficiently to minimise conflict. Senator COONEY—But if we are going to say to someone, ‘You have painted a room. Perhaps you should not have done that,’ we start getting very technical at times. Senator ROBERT RAY—Except that in other areas of government you will find that where business assets and property are to be sold off there is a tendency to renovate them and then sell them off, and the cost is borne by the taxpayer. That is not the case in this case, Senator Cooney, but that is always the concern. Senator FAULKNER—Could I ask on notice in relation to this if you could come back with some detail of any costs that are borne by the Department of the Senate in relation to the new Jetset arrangements. What would be the quantum of those costs and are any of those costs ongoing? I do not want to bog the committee down in that now but I would appreciate it if you could have a look at that for me on notice. I hear what you say about the refurbishment, but I would appreciate it also if you could give me that level of detail too. Mr Alison—The only ongoing costs are for the salaries of staff performing the residual transport office functions. Senator FAULKNER—So there are no utilities and no other services at all? Mr Alison—No.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 243

Senator COONEY—Does the Department of the Senate know precisely what Jetset has to do? Have you got a copy of any contract that was made between the Commonwealth and Jetset? Mr Evans—What functions they perform? Senator COONEY—Yes, what precise function. Is that delineated— The PRESIDENT—The Senate has a draft contract, or has seen a draft contract. Senator COONEY—But any variation in that contract is not made with the Senate, it is made with whom now: with Finance, I suppose. Mr Evans—The Department of Finance and Administration. Senator COONEY—So any alteration in where they go or what they do is made apart from the Senate? Does anybody ring up the Senate and say, ‘We are thinking of leasing the Great Hall’? Mr Evans—We would hope that would not be done without consultation with the parliamentary departments. We would hope that there would be no major change in the contract and the functions of the contractor without consultation. Senator COONEY—But legally it could be done? Mr Evans—It could be, yes. Senator FAULKNER—On what basis did the Department of the Senate sight the draft contract? Mr Evans—I think that was part of the consultation that Mr Alison mentioned; consultation between the Senate Department and the Department of Administrative Services. Senator COONEY—But we as senators and you as a Senate Department have not got the ability to go down and open up a safe and get out the final contract as signed by Jetset. Mr Evans—We do not have the final contract. The PRESIDENT—We are not a party to it. Senator FAULKNER—That is why I asked the question. You have not seen the final contract but you saw a draft contract? Mr Evans—Yes, that is correct. Senator FAULKNER—I see. Did you run it past a contract lawyer at all? I know you have got such expertise in the Department of the Senate in these sorts of matters that probably someone there could do the job very adequately. Mr Evans—Our main interest in the contract was not its legal aspects but to ascertain exactly what functions the contractor was going to perform and what functions, if any, would be left for the Senate Department to perform. Senator COONEY—In fact, you had no ability to put a legal input in at all, as I understand it. Mr Evans—Not really, no. Senator FAULKNER—As far as you are aware, there has not been a change in terms of those functions which were properly of concern to you in the writing of the final contract? Mr Evans—Not that we know of, no. Senator FAULKNER—One would hope that you would know of them if that were the case.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 244 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Evans—We hope we would. Senator FAULKNER—One would suspect you would know of them. Mr Evans—We hope we would, yes. Senator WATSON—I want to take up an issue that I think was raised earlier by my colleague Senator Cooney. I refer to the downgrading of the Senate transport staff. Is there any further downgrading contemplated? I think we have lost a female officer. You have got a temporary person in there, in a much reduced space. Mr Evans—I think at the moment we are looking to see how the current arrangement works. Naturally, we will review that in the future. Senator WATSON—So there are no proposals for any further staff reductions to the officers we have got at the moment. Is that right? Mr Evans—Not firm proposals at this stage. Senator WATSON—Not firm proposals. So there is no possibility that people’s jobs could be up in the air? In other words, we do recognise that any organisation’s best asset is the dedication, quality and loyalty of its staff. There has been some uncertainty about the positions in the transport office for some time and I am just wondering whether you are satisfied entirely about your human relations dealings with all those officers and about keeping them informed. Mr Evans—We cannot guarantee that the current personnel will remain. You have to distinguish between the actual functional arrangements and the level and number of staff devoted to those functions and the actual personnel. It may well be that we will not retain the actual personnel involved in those functions, or formerly involved in those functions. Senator WATSON—But only if they want to leave of their own volition, or are you changing their conditions such that they would not want to stay under the revised conditions? That is what I am asking you: are you satisfied that you have adequately dealt with the human relations aspect with these changes in relation to all of the personnel in that particular office? Mr Evans—I do not think we can be totally satisfied about that. We had a function which was being performed there by our staff. Those staff had a great deal of expertise in the performance of that function. That function has now gone somewhere else under this contracting arrangement and their expertise is to a certain extent redundant. We have a reduced function. We are performing that reduced function at the moment with one of those staff people. I cannot guarantee that those staff members are entirely happy with the situation that they are in or that they will remain with the department. They may choose to depart. As part of any future look at the function, we may offer them voluntary redundancy. Senator ROBERT RAY—Senator Watson, I hate to intervene, but would you want to seek an undertaking from Madam President that notice of any restructuring there would be taken to the Staffing and Appropriations Committee before being acted on? Would that suit the line of your inquiry? Senator WATSON—That could be part of it. Mr Evans—We would certainly consult that committee, yes. Senator WATSON—There have been no reductions in conditions, terms of service or anything like that to the existing personnel who have been very loyal to us over a long time, have there?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 245

Mr Evans—With regard to the terms and conditions, I am not totally sure of the answer to that question. I will ask a colleague to respond to that. Mr O’Keeffe—Their terms and conditions of employment as such have not altered. Obviously, as a result of the restructuring in the transport office, the range of duties they perform has altered. About 60 per cent of their previous work, in terms of booking air flights and so on for senators, has now been taken over by Jetset. Senator WATSON—But they still have quite a significant coordination function with Jetset. It is not just booking cars with Comcar. They have a big coordinating function with Jetset. It is not just purely about ringing up a Comcar service. The PRESIDENT—As I understand it, that is the case, yes. Senator WATSON—So it is not the entire loss of the airline related business. Mr Evans—It is a loss of a large part of the function they formerly performed. The PRESIDENT—They are only booking the cars associated with airline bookings. They are not doing the airline bookings. A huge part of the job has gone. Senator WATSON—I did not want you to lose sight of the fact that there is still a big coordination role that those officers have to perform. Mr Evans—I do not think we have lost sight of that. Certainly the function has been significantly reduced. Senator WATSON—Are you satisfied that your human relations dealings have been as good as they should have been? Mr Evans—As I said, we cannot guarantee that the staff are completely happy with what has occurred. We cannot guarantee that. To a large extent, that is because the letting out of this contract was out of our hands. If we had thought of contracting out the transport function, it would have been done in a different way. Senator WATSON—Was any attempt made to persuade Jetset to employ these people because of their skills and your knowing the people and the arrangements? Mr Evans—Certainly not by us, no. It is not a matter that we get involved in. Senator WATSON—Why not, if you really want to look after your staff? Mr Evans—It is not up to us to try to influence Jetset as to what staff they should be hiring. Senator WATSON—Could you have not made even an indirect approach in terms of the abilities of these people? Could you not convey to Jetset that it would be to their advantage to employ these people? The PRESIDENT—To do that would threaten any voluntary redundancy package. There are more issues involved. Senator COONEY—There are two issues. One concerns what ability the Senate has over the tasks allotted to it. We have considered two groups this morning: Senate transport and the financial management group. In either of those cases, did the Senate have any real ability to influence what happened in the decision making? Mr Evans—Not in relation to the transport contract, no. I am not sure whether you are referring to the transfer of the travel. Senator COONEY—The other one was the travel allowance function.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 246 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Evans—As you know, that was the subject of a report by the Appropriations and Staffing Committee. Senator COONEY—Did the Senate staff, as distinct from the senators, have any decisive say? Mr Evans—Only in advising the Appropriations and Staffing Committee and the Senate generally. But, as you know, the Appropriations and Staffing Committee made a report, and the Senate endorsed it. The transport contract was an entirely different matter. It was entirely out of the hands of the Senate department, and the senators, for that matter. Senator WATSON—I am concerned about statements that may have been made to prospective contractors, such as Jetset. In relation to suitably qualified personnel being employed within the new arrangements, you said that that may upset the voluntary redundancy arrangements. I find that a disturbing statement. If we try to help our staff move into alternative jobs as one of the alternatives, why was that not considered? Mr Evans—I would not have thought it proper to approach Jetset and say, ‘We have these expert people whom you should employ.’ I am sure that, had that happened, I would have later been criticised for interfering with a commercial arrangement designed to ensure that the whole thing runs as competitively as possible. The whole idea of contracting things out is that you allow the contractor to make the commercial decision about what staff they will have, what sort of staff they will hire, how many staff they will have and what arrangements they will make. If I were seen to be trying to influence contractors as to what staff they should hire, I would be accused of interfering with the commercial basis of the whole arrangement. I would not think it proper to do that. Senator WATSON—With respect, I am not saying that there should be an expectation that they use these people. But if you have good people, surely that fact should be able to be conveyed by some informal means. I admit that the ultimate decision obviously would not be yours. However, I see a human relations dimension to this that may have been overlooked. I know that in the IT area a lot of public servants have gone to the contractors. I am just disappointed that there does not seem to have been any encouragement in this area. Mr Evans—If I had approached Jetset, I would be doing so as an officer of the Commonwealth. Here you have the Commonwealth contracting out this function on a commercial basis and saying, ‘Jetset, you are the contractor, you run it on a commercial basis.’ Then someone else from the Commonwealth comes along to Jetset and says, ‘We have these highly qualified expert staff whom we think you should hire.’ That would be seen to be an interference in the commercial basis of the whole operation and not proper for me to do. Senator WATSON—I think there is a big difference between saying, ‘I think that you should employ,’ and making the suggestion to the prospective employer that there are a number of people who may be suitable. I think the difference is ‘must’ as opposed to ‘these people could be available’. Mr Evans—I think it would amount to the same thing. It would be seen as the Commonwealth contracting something out and then trying to influence the contractor as to the basis of their operation. Senator WATSON—Has Mr Greentree been offered a redundancy or has he been faced with a redundancy?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 247

Mr Evans—I am a bit reluctant to say what offers have been made between the department and staff before the arrangements between the department and staff have been finalised, Mr Chairman. CHAIR—Senator Watson, we should not be talking about individual people. Senator WATSON—I know we should not be but I am just a bit unhappy about the handling of this particular case. The PRESIDENT—I think the clerk could have been in just as much trouble if he had been doing that sort of thing from a number of sources such as that. But I hear what you say and I respect your view on the matter. Mr Evans—I do not want to be breaching the privacy of the staff concerned by talking about whether we have made an offer. The PRESIDENT—There is another aspect to this that I do not think is appropriate to mention here either. I respect what you say and I understand what you say. Senator WATSON—It is only as I and my colleagues perceive it. On all sides of the parliament, I think there is a feeling that perhaps we have not treated and looked after some of our staff, whom we regard as our best asset, as well as we should have. The PRESIDENT—I do not agree with that. It has been very difficult. I respect what you say, but I do not think there is anything more than that can be done about it here. CHAIR—While we are on general matters, I think Senator Murray has some questions. Senator MURRAY—It is another field of questions, if we have finished with that particular field. Mr Chairman, it may not fall under program 1 but it certainly falls under the Department of the Senate, so I will proceed on that basis. Mr Evans, I wonder whether you could supply me with information on what resources of the Senate department were devoted to the preparation of the Parliamentary Service Bill. Mr Evans—The bill initially was drafted in the department. When it became known that a separate bill would have to be developed for the parliamentary service, the parliamentary departments consulted about what should be in the bill. It was agreed amongst the parliamentary departments that the drafting resources of the Senate department would be used for the initial draft of the bill. That involved the Clerk Assistant (Procedure) and the Procedure Office working up drafting instructions and getting one of the department’s consultant drafters to draft the bill. Senator MURRAY—That is Dr Laing’s office? Mr Evans—Yes, that is correct. Senator MURRAY—What was the process by which the bill was prepared? Mr Evans—The Senate department did the drafting via one of its consultant drafters, successive drafts were looked at by other people in the parliamentary departments and then the draft was submitted to the Presiding Officers. Senator MURRAY—So in the preparation and process of the bill, were there consultations with the equivalent officers in the House of Representatives? Mr Evans—Yes. Senator MURRAY—Was it a joint drafting or were they merely consulted? Mr Evans—The consultations were about the content of the bill. The actual drafting was done by the Senate department.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 248 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator MURRAY—Was the final draft cleared with your counterparts in the House of Representatives? Mr Evans—Yes, at the end of that process, the heads of the parliamentary departments submitted a draft bill to the Presiding Officers. Senator MURRAY—Mr Evans, how does the bill introduced by the Speaker into the House of Representatives and passed by that House differ from the bill originally prepared; and, if it does differ, what was the background to the changes? Mr Evans—The Presiding Officers considered the draft bill as submitted by the departmental heads and made a number of changes to it. I could perhaps summarise the changes. The major changes related to the terms of appointment of the clerks of the two houses, the terms of appointment of the heads of the other parliamentary departments and the insertion of a general power of direction on the part of the Presiding Officers. There were a few other changes; they were the major changes. Senator MURRAY—It would be true to say that the question of tenure has been the most controversial aspect of this bill so far expressed, so these changes were quite material. Mr Evans—The change which was made to the term of appointment of the clerks of the two houses was a change from an appointment for an indefinite term but retirement at age 65 to an appointment for a fixed and non-renewable 10-year term. As I said to the Appropriations and Staffing Committee, I think a lot of the controversy about what might and might not be in the bill was caused by stories about other proposals that were circulating around at the time and stories about other things that might emerge from the process before the bill was introduced. Senator FAULKNER—If I can interrupt you, Senator Murray: it is true, isn’t it, that there was a significant amount of press speculation from government sources in relation to a five- year renewable term for the clerks of the parliamentary departments? Mr Evans—There was certainly speculation about that. There was a great deal of other speculation about what might emerge in the bill as introduced and what part the government was playing in it. Senator MURRAY—If I can return to my earlier questions about resources and process: as I understood it, the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Senate consulted; the Clerk Assistant (Procedure), Dr Laing, consulted with her counterpart in the House; and the bill was prepared. In the process of developing that draft, was the president involved at all in discussions on that? Mr Evans—All parliamentary departments consulted about the content of the bill. The Senate department drafted the initial draft of the bill and then that was submitted to the Presiding Officers. Senator MURRAY—Was the drafting process subject to a brief from the Presiding Officers or was it subject to the Department of the Senate’s own initiative? Mr Evans—The initial draft was almost entirely the result of consultations between the parliamentary departments about what should go in the initial draft of the bill. Senator MURRAY—But I presume the initiative for a new bill and the use of the resources that resulted from it did not come from yourselves; it would have come from the President and the Speaker?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 249

Mr Evans—That is correct. As you probably know, the parliamentary departments were consulted about a new Public Service bill and what should be in it about the parliamentary departments. It was announced that the government had made a decision that the parliamentary departments would not be covered by the Public Service Bill 1997 and would have to be dealt with in a separate bill. At that stage, the Presiding Officers indicated that the parliamentary departments should develop a bill. Senator MURRAY—But the Presiding Officers would not give you an open chart; they would surely have directed you as to the general content, at least, that they would expect in the draft. The PRESIDENT—It was my view and the Speaker’s that it was appropriate for the parliamentary staff to be in a separate bill. I was pleased that that was the way it was going to happen. We invited the heads of the departments to consult with each other about what they thought should be in the bill. As has been recounted is the way it happened. Senator COONEY—The two bills—the Parliamentary Service Bill 1997 and the Public Service Bill 1997—would be reasonably similar in content, wouldn’t they? Let me put it this way: say we had two columns and put down the terms of the Public Service Bill 1997 on the left and the terms of the Parliamentary Service Bill 1997 on the right, they would be fairly close together when you looked at the terms, wouldn’t they? Mr Evans—The approach was to make the bill reflect the Public Service Bill 1997 except in those areas where it was believed that the nature of the parliamentary service required significant changes. Senator COONEY—So you had the policy worked out for the Public Service Bill 1997, that policy was put over into the drafting and that was the basis that you used for the Parliamentary Service Bill 1997? Mr Evans—Yes, but—again I stress—making changes to the Parliamentary Service Bill 1997, particularly where the position of the presiding officers is different from that of ministers and in relation to other matters, such as the method of appointment and removal of the two clerks. Senator COONEY—But would it be fair to say that the fundamental philosophy behind both bills is the same? Mr Evans—Yes, the philosophy of the Public Service Bill 1997 is followed. Senator MURRAY—In developing the process for the preparation of the bill and using the resources of the Senate to do that, did the clerks consult at all with their counterparts in other countries to establish precedent and procedures by which such a bill should be governed? Mr Evans—We did ask for some clarification from our Victorian counterparts of the legislation there and we did collect some bits of legislation from other jurisdictions. Senator MURRAY—Including foreign jurisdictions? Mr Evans—Yes. Senator MURRAY—Let me recap: you did not get anything but a general direction from the Presiding Officers; the brief that went to the Clerk Assistant (Procedure) was derived as a result of the consultative process with the senior officers within the Senate and within the House— Mr Evans—And the other parliamentary departments.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 250 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator MURRAY—And the other parliamentary departments; that draft was then presented to the Presiding Officers and it was at that stage that the changes were made? Mr Evans—Correct. Senator WATSON—Coming back to the staff issue again. In relation to Mr Nankervis’s former department, are the officers who handled our TA arrangements working in compatible areas, in the new finance and public administration associated with this area? Mr Evans—No change to our staffing has been made at this stage as a result of the transfer of the TA function. Senator WATSON—So he has got another job within the Senate, has he? Mr Evans—I am not sure whom you are talking about, Senator. The PRESIDENT—He just said no change has been made. Mr Evans—The person you appear to be referring to is still working in the Senate department’s financial management office. Senator WATSON—In terms of the overall new arrangements, has this been done with fewer staff than the Senate was able to do it with, because I seem to think it handled it pretty efficiently from a staff point of view? Mr Evans—We do not know the answer to that. The PRESIDENT—You would need to ask that department. Senator WATSON—I see. I may ask them to see whether it is done with the same sorts of resources. Thank you. Senator ROBERT RAY—I have some questions on fax machines that I wish to run through very quickly with Mr Alison. How was the decision made to go with a Canon fax L500 machine? Mr Alison—I am sorry, I do not know the answer. Senator ROBERT RAY—You might look at that and get back to me. While you are checking that, you might get me the answer to whether any trials with selected senators were conducted. You might also get me an answer whether there have been any complaints made, especially as regards paper capacity. You might also inquire as to why the DAS machine in our electorate offices, which is also a Canon fax L500, has four times the paper capacity compared with fax machines here. I think you can see the problem, Madam President. When you are away for a few weeks, the machine runs out of paper. It is the same machine sitting in our electorate offices. The PRESIDENT—Can they be modified to take more paper? Senator ROBERT RAY—That is a good idea. They might be able to be modified to take more paper. If not—and I know we have to run these things out to the end—when is a replacement schedule likely? When do the existing contractual arrangements expire? I am happy to have all of those questions taken on notice. I have only one more area to go to, and that is to you, Madam President. The 1998 outgoing delegations program has been released. I assume you know it has. The PRESIDENT—It has been released, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—I am just a bit confused about one aspect of it. By the way, I am not going. I have had my trip. The PRESIDENT—What a shame!

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 251

Senator ROBERT RAY—It is the reference to the IPU which comes under the ‘Presiding Officers Control’. I will read it to you: Provision has been made for an additional position to be allocated to each of the two delegations which attend IPU conferences annually. This position is open to a government woman MP on a continuing basis for the life of the government. Can I ask why? The PRESIDENT—Yes. The Speaker and I are of the view that it is important we have permanent female representation at the meeting that takes place at the IPU before the conference starts. There is no mechanism within the present arrangements that guarantees there is a woman in each delegation. I am also very firmly of the view that the benefit of these conferences is having continuity of people who can be involved—the same way as we have the two permanent delegates to the IPU. Having discussed this for some time—and I have been involved with this to an extent—we decided that it was worth while doing this. We think that it should be only one and that it should be a government woman, whoever is in government obviously. It is of benefit to our involvement with the IPU that that should happen. We are also of the view that the IPU should be cut back to meeting once a year, not twice. We have proposed this within the numbers of trips being allocated for the year, and we realise it has an impact. I think, if we are going to be involved with the IPU, we might as well be really involved with it and get something out of it. Senator ROBERT RAY—Madam President, with due respect, I have to say that sounds like absolute garbage to me. Why can’t your party room select a woman each time as your permanent delegate to go? Why should it be reserved for a government woman? I really cannot understand this. The PRESIDENT—The party room would decide the same as it decides the permanent delegates who go now. There is one Labor and one Liberal permanent delegate chosen at the beginning of each session after each election. Senator ROBERT RAY—Why is it essential to have a female delegate there? The PRESIDENT—I think it is important—you may disagree—but there is a meeting of women of the IPU that takes place before the main conference. I think there is benefit for us to be there and to participate and to have a say in those discussions. In fact, in many respects I think that meeting is as significant as some of the others that actually occur at the IPU. Senator ROBERT RAY—If it is so important, why doesn’t the government send a parliamentary secretary who is female? Senator Troeth would be very adequate— The PRESIDENT—Undoubtedly, she would be. Senator ROBERT RAY—One of the departmental people— The PRESIDENT—I see this in the same category as the two permanent delegates who go to the IPU. Senator ROBERT RAY—Are we going to have a permanent female delegate to the UN over the next three years? The PRESIDENT—No, we have two there this year. It has worked out very well. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. From the outside, this looks like the government bottling up another position. The PRESIDENT—No, it is not.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 252 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—Why not send a female from the opposition or the Democrats as well? The PRESIDENT—We would quite like to do that, but we just felt that if one were going it would permanently be a government person from the government party room. Senator ROBERT RAY—If I were in the government, I would find that very convenient, but I am not. The PRESIDENT—You may well be again some time. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, but I am not sure that we ever did anything like this. The PRESIDENT—You did not. Senator ROBERT RAY—No. So why not at least balance it up and say, ‘Look, we are going to send an extra female. We will send two. We will send an opposition and a Democrat’? Let us have the fight over who it is, but balance it up. It just looks like a partisan decision. The PRESIDENT—I would be quite happy to send two. Senator ROBERT RAY—I will leave it in your capable hands. The PRESIDENT—Thank you. Senator COONEY—I want to go back to what Senator Murray and Senator Watson were asking; that is, this issue of the way people within the Senate are to be employed in the future, presuming that the bill goes through. There are two things about that. The first aspect is the issue of the security of employment—industrial justice, if I can use that phrase. The second aspect is the issue of the knowledge and the culture that are within the department. I think it is a very courteous culture and one that you ought to be encouraging. Do you see a danger with the new legislation? I am not asking about policy, but do you see a danger that people may be allowed to go or may even be dismissed, given the new time restraints that are going to be applied and the new means of hiring and firing that are going to be employed under the act? Do you see any danger to the industrial justice that ought to properly operate, and is at the moment operating, within the Senate? Do you see any danger to the great store of knowledge that we have presently got there and that culture of courtesy and what have you that I have talked about being prejudiced? There are time limits on all sorts of offices. Mr Evans—That is a very big question. As I have made clear to the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts and to this committee, looking at the new Public Service legislation, I see a very serious danger of a change in the general culture of the Public Service spilling over into the parliamentary departments. I think that simply springs from the philosophy of the legislation which, as you have elicited, to a certain extent we are compelled to follow in the Parliamentary Service Bill. I would hope that the parliamentary departments, and this parliamentary department, can retain the sort of culture that you are talking about. Certainly aspects of the new legislation are inimical to that culture. Senator COONEY—One of the reasons I asked is that on page 97 of the annual report of the Department of the Senate I see the photograph of the chamber support, mail and freight section of the Black Rod’s office. They all give you great and courteous service and nothing is too much trouble to them. If that sort of culture were broken, I think everybody around this end of the table would feel very sad about it and less well served. The PRESIDENT—I would agree with you. I do not believe that will happen.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 253

Senator COONEY—That will depend very much on the Presiding Officers and on the clerks. They are going to change fairly rapidly. If you look at things in terms of the time culture takes to develop and flower, the new time limits are very interesting, not only in terms of the clerk but in terms of the assistant clerks and others. I wonder whether you think that is going to have any impact on this culture and on the service that we get. Mr Evans—That is part of the long-term potential problem that I see. The problem that I identified with the 10-year non-renewable term for the clerks of the houses is that the independence of those positions may be compromised by that provision. To put it bluntly, a person appointed to that position at a young age, at the end of a 10-year term, apart from the fact that they will have developed a great deal of expertise that will then be done away with— that is another issue, and you can argue that it facilitates other people coming along and developing their expertise and so on—is going to be looking for a job. If they accept a government position at the end of that 10-year term, that will lead people to wonder how independent that person has been when in the position of clerk of either house: has their advice over that period been influenced by the prospect of a government job at the end of their 10- year term? That is the problem which I see with the 10-year non-renewable term. That problem would be greatly exacerbated by some of the other proposals that were talked about such as a five-year renewable term or a two year renewable term, something like that. Senator COONEY—And people being able to be hired and fired at the instance of particular officers. Mr Evans—I was going to go on to say that there is a larger problem with the philosophy of the new legislation. It is usually referred to as a problem of insecurity, but I think it is more than just insecurity of employment; I think it is an application of what is thought to be the philosophy of the private sector to the public sector that the chief executive officer should be able to hire and fire at will and to do so frequently and as necessary. Whether that is appropriate in the private sector is another matter but it is very questionable whether it is appropriate in the public sector and whether that will produce the sort of public sector that you want to have in the long run. Senator COONEY—Whether you are going to get a public sector like the one in America with the spoil system begun by Thomas Jefferson, brought to fruition with Andrew Jackson and still going strong. Mr Evans—Yes, but as I point out to people, what we are getting is not the American system. It may well be something worse. In the American public sector there is a line drawn between political appointees and others and you know whether you are on either side of that line. I once asked the people working at the embassy here which side of the line they were on and they said the ambassador is the only political appointee. The rest of them are all career officers. They have that line drawn between political appointments and other appointments. We will not have a clear line like that drawn in our system. The PRESIDENT—I do not think there is any problem with this. When you talk about the clerk being appointed for 10-years non-renewable, you have to take into account the fact that we have elections every three years in this country and the government that may well be in when a clerk is appointed may not be the same government at the end of the period. So I do not see that as a problem. Senator COONEY—I follow that, but looking not only at the clerk but at others who have shorter periods of time, on page 84 of this report I see the very fine photograph of Mr Peter O’Keeffe, Clerk Assistant, who has vast experience and has served us well over the years with

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 254 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997 regulations and ordinances and elsewhere. His tenure is even more capricious in terms of the act. Mr Evans—I think Senator Cooney is drawing attention to a potentially large problem in the future. As he says, it will be a possible change of culture. We would hope that it would not intrude into the parliamentary departments, but we cannot guarantee that it will not. We certainly cannot guarantee that in 10 or 15 years time your successors will not be saying that you do not have the sort of public sector that you set out to achieve or that you wanted. Senator COONEY—When we see a departure even now we lose a lot. I notice Helen Hueston from the Tables Office is about to depart. We get great service down there. With her going, we will have to establish new connections, and what have you. It is not good. Mr Evans—I think the virtue of having experienced staff with expertise is underrated in the current philosophy which is being applied to the public sector, and elsewhere too. Senator MURRAY—Mr Evans, have you any experience of the private sector in your working life? Mr Evans—No extensive experience, none that I have relied on. Senator MURRAY—You would be aware that I do have a lot of experience in that area. I would suggest to you that the private sector model is an autocratic one where independence is not encouraged in employees. The result of their system is that you get far more ‘yes’ people in the private sector than you do in the public sector. Are you aware of that situation? Mr Evans—I was a bit careful before to say that the philosophy which is being applied is what is thought to be— Senator MURRAY—Not in my experience, which is better than most. Mr Evans—the philosophy of the private sector. We read in the management literature that good corporations are the ones which give their staff a lot of initiative, which value the expertise and the development of their staff and so on, and which do not hire and fire their staff in the manner that some interpret the private sector as doing. I think there is a lot of difference between corporations in the private sector, and what is sometimes put forward as the philosophy of the private sector is only a philosophy drawn from a part of it. CHAIR—Senators, can I intervene? It seems to me we are getting a bit sidetracked away from the estimates. This committee has had an inquiry into this particular bill, as has— The PRESIDENT—The Appropriations and Staffing Committee. CHAIR—the Appropriations and Staffing Committee, so I think we really should get back onto the estimates. Senator COONEY—I have one smart question—I know it is really a smartypants question, but it is my last one. I notice in the legislation that is coming through there is a whole range of provisions as to the sorts of people that public servants ought to be and the sorts of qualities they ought to have. Is there any provision in any act that makes it necessary for those in the private sector to whom matters will be outsourced to have the same sorts of qualities? Will those same sorts of qualities be legislated as being necessary for those people? Is there any legislation that does that, do you know? The PRESIDENT—I do not really follow what you are getting at. Senator COONEY—Put it this way: we ask that our public servants have certain qualities and in fact we are going to legislate for that—that is in the act. Are we legislating that those same qualities will be necessary for those people to whom we outsource our material?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 255

Mr Evans—Again, Senator Cooney raises a large issue. That is one of the criticisms— Senator COONEY—Would you please stop this man laughing at a very serious question, Mr Chairman? The PRESIDENT—Senator Cooney and the Clerk are enjoying themselves. Senator FAULKNER—I am mildly amused with the Clerk’s comment that Senator Cooney has raised a large issue. Mr Evans—It is one of the problems that is raised with extensive outsourcing of public functions. I had a discussion about it with this committee when this committee was looking at the question of outsourcing. I think there will inevitably grow up a demand for private corporations to be accountable for the whole way in which they deliver public services. They will not be able to say, ‘How we run our business is our business if we deliver the service. That’s all you are interested in.’ I do not think they will be able to maintain that. There will be a demand for them to be accountable in the same way as public bodies are accountable. Senator COONEY—But there is presently no legislation before parliament that would insist that private enterprise has the same sorts of qualities that we are demanding of the public sector? Mr Evans—There is none. Senator WATSON—I have a point in relation to the government information that flows into private contractors’ hands. Those private contractors are governed by the Crimes Act, they are governed by the Privacy Act, and the property remains at all times the property of the Commonwealth. To that extent, they do have to conform very closely to the public sector. Mr Evans—Yes, but I am sure Senator Cooney would say there is nothing to determine the type of staff of the private companies who will be administering those requirements. CHAIR—I think perhaps we should get back to the program. Are there any questions on program 1? Senator FAULKNER—I have a question about accommodation pressures. Is it appropriate that I ask that of you, Mr Alison? Mr Evans—Yes, Mr Chairman. Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, Mr Evans. Mr Alison, given that an additional parliamentary secretary has been appointed on the Senate side in the sense that Senator Minchin has become a minister—previously he occupied an office in the Executive Wing, as you are aware—and Senator Troeth has become a parliamentary secretary appointed by the government, is there now a significant issue in relation to appropriate accommodation and pressures for appropriate accommodation, given the number of parliamentary secretaries that we have on the Senate side? Mr Alison—There has been no pressure from Senator Troeth— Senator FAULKNER—No, I do not mean from her. I am not suggesting for one moment that Senator Troeth is pressuring you—do not misunderstand me. I am asking— The PRESIDENT—There have been parliamentary secretaries who have asked for extra space, and I think two of them are sharing something that is available at the present time. The answer otherwise is: we have a limited number of suites available for parliamentary secretaries. If the government appoints more than that, they make do with what we have got.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 256 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator FAULKNER—How many suites do you have available for parliamentary secretaries? The PRESIDENT—That are different from other suites? Senator FAULKNER—Yes. Mr Alison—I will have to take that on notice. I think it is— The PRESIDENT—There are suites that are different for people other than parliamentary secretaries, so it might be best if we get you a breakdown of the suites and identify what they are. Some are allocated to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and things like that. Senator FAULKNER—The point of my question is that there has been such a blow-out in the number of parliamentary secretaries— The PRESIDENT—Most of them are making do in ordinary suites because there is no alternative—and no modifications will be made. Senator FAULKNER—So they settle for being a parliamentary secretary sans parliamentary suite as opposed to not having the position at all. The PRESIDENT—That is a choice a senator would have to make. Senator FAULKNER—I see. So it is not causing enormous problems as Usher of the Black Rod, Mr Alison? Is that what you are suggesting to me? Mr Alison—I am not getting a great deal of pressure from Senator Troeth. That is not true of some of the other parliamentary secretaries. Senator FAULKNER—So you are getting some pressure from them? The PRESIDENT—I said that at the beginning. There has been correspondence to me asking for more space and letters going back saying, ‘Ask for it in the executive wing.’ Senator FAULKNER—So how many parliamentary secretaries do we have now who are not occupying appropriate accommodation? Mr Alison—The answer to the earlier question is that there is one enhanced suite for a parliamentary secretary. Another parliamentary secretary is given the temporary use of a room across the corridor from his office. So only two of the parliamentary secretaries have additional space. Senator FAULKNER—How are you going in withstanding this pressure? Are you coping okay with it? Mr Alison—I have very broad shoulders. I have had something like 22 years experience at this. It was much more difficult in the Old Parliament House. Senator FAULKNER—Well, you have never had this number of parliamentary secretaries trying to fit into the same number of offices, have you? Nearly everyone has a job over there. It is good for them—I am not knocking it. Good luck to them. Mr Alison—We can often get pressure from the opposition as well for space in the building. Senator FAULKNER—Sure. But we are not asking about that, are we? And it just so happens at the moment that the figures look pretty good by comparison, don’t they, really? Mr Alison—What I am trying to say is that we deal with all senators equally. Senator FAULKNER—But given the number of opposition shadow ministers and parliamentary secretaries, there are no accommodation problems with those opposition office holders.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 257

Mr Alison—That is true. Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, Mr Alison. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said in relation to the government. The PRESIDENT—Get the facts straight. There are two parliamentary secretaries who have had some space made available for them in addition to what would be the suite they would be in. Senator FAULKNER—Could you explain who they are, Madam President? Who are the lucky ones? The PRESIDENT—I do not know. Who are they? Senator CALVERT—There are five parliamentary secretaries. I do not think numbers changed, because two parliamentary secretaries became ministers. The PRESIDENT—Senator Brownhill and Senator Tambling have— Senator FAULKNER—They are the lucky ones. The PRESIDENT—slightly extra space to what would normally be available. Senator CALVERT—They have always had that. The PRESIDENT—The others do not. And there is no pressure and there is nothing that can or will be done about it. Senator FAULKNER—But aren’t there coalition frictions on this that they are both from the National Party and that the Liberal Party— The PRESIDENT—I suspect that the others do not know. Senator FAULKNER—I bet they do now. The PRESIDENT—The answer is that there will be no more space made available to anybody. My answer is: ‘If you need extra space, go to the executive wing and deal with it there with the minister you are related to. Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam President. You were far more forthcoming than I expected you to be. The PRESIDENT—It is not a problem. CHAIR—That completes program 1. As there are no questions on programs 2, 3, 4, or 5, we will proceed to program 6. [10.27 a.m.] Program 6—Black Rod’s Office Senator CALVERT—I ask this question purely and simply as a shop steward for the Senate. In recent days there has been a further reduction in the number of permanent Comcar drivers. Does that mean there will be a reduction in the number of cars? And particularly in the first week back of a parliamentary session, will we have enough cars physically available to carry out the needs of the Senate? I am asking about the total needs, because you do have a situation at times where, when we get up at the same time every night, there is an outflow of senators—and particularly in that first week when quite a few wives are in attendance there is a demand for cars. Do you believe that under the new arrangements there will be enough vehicles available to cope with what should normally be needed?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 258 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

The PRESIDENT—That is a matter to put to the Department of Finance and Administra- tion. We do not own cars; we book cars. We put in the bookings, and it is for them to provide. Senator CALVERT—So DAS is the one I should be talking to? The PRESIDENT—Yes. CHAIR—That completes the Department of the Senate. Thank you. Sitting suspended from 10.28 a.m. to 10.37 a.m. JOINT HOUSE DEPARTMENT CHAIR—I welcome officers from the Joint House Department. Senator FAULKNER—I asked the Department of the Senate a number of questions in relation to the Jetset arrangements. I do not know whether you heard them or not, Mr Bolton. Could I also ask you whether the Joint House Department is bearing any costs in relation to the new arrangements for travel and, if so, what they might be? Mr Bolton—I have just been given some information. Some of my officers have obviously been working ahead on that. Senator FAULKNER—Very impressive. Mr Bolton—In terms of the Senate Transport Office, which is the space you asked about, in July 1997— Senator FAULKNER—Is it still called the Senate Transport Office? Are we talking about the same space? Mr Bolton—The Jetset office. The PRESIDENT—Fondly known as the Senate Transport Office. Senator FAULKNER—Maybe fondly known as that but not technically known as such. Mr Bolton—We replaced the carpet and underlay in that area and painted the office. Apparently in September we fitted some new lock cylinders and changed the glass name plate that goes on the wall so it represented what the office was going to be used for. We removed the TV shelf and obviously did some patch and painting in the room as well when the Senate officers vacated the space. We did similar things in what was formerly the House of Representatives Transport Office as well. I will not go into that. However, we have signed a commercial rental arrangement with Jetset. We basically see ourselves as the landlords for space in Parliament House. We have arrangements with something like 38 organisations, including most of the media organisations. We charge a commercial rental, which is set by the Australian Valuation Office. As part of that arrangement, we recover commercial rental. We go in and do all the things that a landlord normally would do—that is, maintain the premises, look after it, keep it in good order and condition. That rental agreement also covers outgoings like electricity and other utility costs. Senator FAULKNER—Are those figures available to the committee? Mr Bolton—Generally, we do not release the figures. Senator FAULKNER—I am asking whether you generally release them or not. Mr Bolton—No, we do not. Senator FAULKNER—How would we make a comparison between the costs of the old system and the costs of the new system in this area? If you were advising me, as an interested

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 259 senator, on how to establish how cost effective this change had been, what would you suggest I do, Mr Bolton? Mr Bolton—In terms of the responsibilities I have, the costs would be of the same sort of order. If you want to compare like with like, we did not charge the Senate for its accommodation. The parliamentary departments are accommodated here at no cost and the appropriations are in the Joint House Department to run the place. We would do exactly the same exercise with the Australian Valuation Office. We would ask them for a cost of running that space, which was what they have given us. For Joint House the costs are the same except that, in this case, because it is a private organisation, we recover those costs. Senator FAULKNER—If I want to be satisfied that the costs are of the same order, how can I satisfied of that? I want you to satisfy me that that is the case, how will you go about doing it? Mr Bolton—In terms of what it costs to run that space, I do not see any difference in the costs in running that space and maintaining that space. Senator FAULKNER—How do I know that unless I can compare what it is now to what it was before? The PRESIDENT—There was none before. Senator FAULKNER—Compare what it is now to whatever the outgoings may have been before. Mr Bolton—The books of the Joint House Department are audited by the Auditor-General and he looks at the licences we have and what we are charging for those. The department does not involve itself in setting those licence agreements. They are set by an independent authority set up by the government called the Australian Valuation Office. We hope that they set the standards. Senator FAULKNER—What about the cost of utilities—light and power, for example? Are there separate charges for them or are they included in the overall rental cost? Mr Bolton—They are included in the rental arrangement. The PRESIDENT—As it is for all tenants in the building. Senator FAULKNER—What about cabling for computers and electronic equipment? Mr Bolton—They do not come under Joint House, but not to avoid your question, if they are special requirements for a private organisation I am sure that DPRS, where that responsibility would lie, would pass those charges on to the private operator. Senator FAULKNER—Have there been new cabling arrangements and the like in that Jetset travel office? Mr Bolton—I am not familiar with all the details. I will call on the Chief Engineer who may have some of those specific details. Mr Guilfoyle—My understanding is that Jetset had to pay for one computer link to be pulled through for their own system and the remainder of their services are running over the cabling that was already there and would be unused otherwise from the Senate. In terms of their external lines, obviously, as with other media and retail people, they pay their bills direct because they do not go through our telephone exchange. It is only internal lines for the benefit of the senators and members that are provided by the parliament. Further detail would be best obtained from the Parliamentary Information Systems Office which has full responsibility for the area.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 260 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator FAULKNER—As you know they are not before us today. Perhaps it might be useful for you to take that detail on notice. That might be helpful, Madam President. Mr Guilfoyle—We will take further detail on notice, but that is my understanding of the general situation. Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, that might be useful in this particular circumstance, do you think? The PRESIDENT—Yes. Senator FAULKNER—I am sure that it can be dealt with that way. So what you are saying to me is that there is some extra cabling and that, as far as you are aware, has been provided and paid for by Jetset itself? Mr Guilfoyle—That is my understanding of the arrangement. Senator FAULKNER—Is use of those sorts of facilities included in the overall rental evaluation? Mr Guilfoyle—Yes. We were not provided with separate metering for power, for instance, in each room because it was a government building. It would be far more expensive to put in individual metering than it is to work it out on a square meter basis as to the consumption for light and air conditioning and build it into the room rate. The cost of the metering would be far in excess of what we could recover. Senator FAULKNER—Was the refurbishment of this particular area going to occur anyway? Mr Guilfoyle—Yes. To keep the tenor of the building and consistency in most of our retail areas, we provide the carpet. The cost of that is a factor in the price of the rental of the space. That is one of the things that are provided and taken account of with the aim, therefore, that we control the quality, the colour and the standard of carpet in keeping with the Senate layout. Senator FAULKNER—I understood from the Black Rod when he was giving evidence to the committee before that, effectively, there is a minor work schedule in terms of refurbishment and the like. Mr Guilfoyle—Correct, yes. Senator FAULKNER—And that there had been no change to the priorities on that minor work schedule in relation to Jetset. I understand that to be the general tenor of the evidence that has been given to us. Mr Guilfoyle—We negotiate that with his office for access. Where it suits him, we provide the advice that we think it is time for an area to be refurbished. We coordinate with that office for access and whether it meets the operating requirements of the Senate and senators. Senator FAULKNER—Take, for example, the refurbishment of suite MG3. Is that of a scale and nature that means it was also on the minor work schedule of your department? Mr Guilfoyle—I would have to take that on notice and check exactly what has been done in MG3. The building is a little too large for me to remember each and every room and what happened within it. The PRESIDENT—Who is the tenant? Senator FAULKNER—The government members’ secretariat.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 261

Mr Guilfoyle—That expense was borne by the department for the refurbishment that occurred there, not by parliament. We simply superintended the work. We did our normal maintenance, but the refurbishment that occurred there was not a cost to the parliament. Senator FAULKNER—The cost was to whom then? Mr Guilfoyle—To the Department of Administrative Services, I think. Mr Bolton—The then Department of Administrative Services. It is now the Department of Finance and Administration. Senator FAULKNER—I see. Could you explain to the committee what your role was in relation to that refurbishment please. Mr Guilfoyle—When we understood that they wished to refurbish and that they were having designs done, we spoke to them and told them what our parliamentary standards were in terms of the quality of paintwork, carpet, air conditioning, fire regulations and everything else and offered to superintend the work after they let the contract to ensure that everything was done to our standards and the way we wanted things done in the building. That was undertaken by one of my officers. Senator FAULKNER—Is that work completed yet? Mr Guilfoyle—The work generally is complete. There are some defects outstanding. It is what is called practical completion, so there are some minor touch ups. We are not satisfied that they have done everything dead right. It is exactly the same as you would have in a new house where you are given a period with the builder. Senator FAULKNER—Does that include, again, cabling for any new electronic equipment and these sorts of things? Are you able to advise us? Mr Guilfoyle—The job that we were involved with did not involve any significant changes to cabling whatsoever. It was simply some rearrangement of space. Senator FAULKNER—Mr Guilfoyle, would you be able to provide on notice for the benefit of the committee the specifications—the parameters—of that work? I appreciate you would not have it at your fingertips now. Mr Guilfoyle—We can take that on notice and show you the outline of the thing. But, remember, we were not involved with the monetary side of that equation; that was being handled by someone else. We are simply aware of the physical changes. Senator FAULKNER—Let me assure you that I have that absolutely on board and that I thought that would be the case. I would be interested in understanding the nature of your discussions with the then DAS and what your understanding is in relation to the work that has been undertaken and now is at the stage of practical completion. I do not want to bog the committee down with this. Mr Guilfoyle—We have the information and can provide it on notice. Senator FAULKNER—Thanks very much. CHAIR—There being no further questions, thank you very much Madam President and officers. Sitting suspended from 10.50 a.m. to 10.57 a.m.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 262 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

DEPARTMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET Proposed expenditure, $13,001,000 (document A). In Attendance Senator Hill, Minister for the Environment Senator Herron, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Mr Bill Blick, Executive Coordinator Departmental Policy Coordination Mr Alan Henderson, FAS, Industry Policy Division Dr David Harrison, Acting FAS, Economic Division Ms Patricia Scott, Assistant Secretary, Fiscal Policy Ms Katrina Edwards, Acting FAS, Income Support Ms Clare Nairn, Assistant Secretary, Office of the Status of Women Ms Lyn Ranieri, Acting Senior Adviser, Office of the Status of Women Mr Peter Vaughan, FAS, Office of Indigenous Affairs Ms Phillipa Horner, Convenor, WIK Taskforce Mr Allan Taylor, Executive Coordinator, Internation, Security and Resources Mr Grahame Cook, FAS, Natural Resources Division Government Support Services Mr Malcolm Hazell, Assistant Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat Mr Martin Bonsey, First Assistant Secretary, Government Corporate Services Mr Nhan Vo-Van, Assistant Secretary, Corport Support Branch Mr John Doherty, Assistant Secretary, Convention and Corporate Management Mr Joe d’Angelo, Director, Financial Management Public Administration and Accountability Mr Peter Kennedy, Deputy Public Service Commissioner Ms Ann Forward, Merit Protection Commissioner Mr Peter Miller, Acting Team Leader, Structural Change Team Ms Jan Mills, Team Leader, Internal Support Team Ms Heather Byrne, Internal Support Team Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Ms Linda Atkinson, Senior Assistant Ombudsman Mr Harry Hugg, Executive Officer Mr Chris Ross, Executive Officer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Ms P Turner, Chief Executive Officer Mr G Rees, Deputy Chief Executive Officer Mr J Eldridge, General Manager, Social & Cultural

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 263

Mr P Schnierer, General Manager, Corporate Services Ms K Sculthorpe, Acting General Manager, Strategic Development & Support Mr I Myers, Acting General Manager, Economic Mr W Miller, Director, Office of Evaluation and Audit Mr C Plowman, Assistant General Manager, Housing, Infrastructure Health & Heritage Mr R Kent, Assistant General Manager, Culture, Legal Aid & Family Policy Mr R Alfredson, Assistant General Manager, Finance Mr M White, Assistant General Manager, Human Resources & Corporate Admin Mr B Stacey, Co-ordinator, WIK Team Ms J Oakley, Acting Assistant General Manager, Native Title & Land Rights Mr B Johnson, Acting Assistant General Manager, CDEP & Employment Policy Mr D Pak Poy, Acting Assistant General Manager, Commercial Mr J Ramsay, Assistant General Manager, Strategic Support Mr R Goodrick, Assistant General Manager, Legal Mr L Sadlo, Acting Assistant General Manager, Strategic Planning & Policy Neville Jackson Roger Hollis Trevor Vivian [10.57 a.m.] CHAIR—Welcome Minister, Mr Blick, and officers from the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Are there any general questions? Senator ROBERT RAY—I anticipate the general questions are going to take several hours but the good news is that the specific program ones are not—from our side. Do you want me to kick it off? CHAIR—Please. Senator ROBERT RAY—Through you, Senator Hill, to Mr Blick if I can, because I think you would probably take this. Could you give me an explanation, Mr Blick, about the guide- lines regarding access to the files of previous governments? Senator Hill—I missed the last couple of words. Senator ROBERT RAY—I am asking about what the guidelines are regarding access to the files of the previous government. Mr Blick—There are two aspects to that: one is access by the current government and one is access by members of the former government. Do you want me to deal with both of those? Senator ROBERT RAY—I think I am pretty much aware, because the Archives Act spells out former government—current government. Mr Blick—In general, the rule is—as expressed in the ministerial guide that you are aware of- that the current government does not have access to cabinet documents of the previous government or to deliberative documents generally.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 264 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—There is not so much a let-out clause but a clause of only three words that refers to ‘continuity of administration.’ Would you like to explain what that means? Mr Blick—That is correct. If it is necessary, for the purposes of current activities, to inform a member of the current government of material that would be on files that relate to the activities of the previous government, then it is legitimate to do so. In the ordinary course, where the issue arose about access to actual documentation as distinct from factual material, one would apply the convention that one does not show a deliberative document of the previous government to a member of the current government. The normal practice would be to provide a summary or an indication of what was decided. Senator ROBERT RAY—Do you know how many departments have sought guidance on this particular issue because I take it that PM&C, being the premier department, would be the one they would seek guidance from on this? Mr Blick—Yes, I cannot give you a figure, obviously, but I am certainly conscious of a handful of requests for guidance in the last 18 months or so. Senator ROBERT RAY—Who would be the PM&C officer normally responsible for issuing this guidance? Mr Blick—It would not necessarily be a single PM&C officer. I have been consulted myself; other officers within the government division of PM&C have been consulted. Senator ROBERT RAY—Were you consulted by the Minister for Defence when he released a cable from 1986 regarding the issue of where 707s fly on to after the Cook Islands? Mr Blick—I do not recall being consulted myself. Senator ROBERT RAY—You would recall if you were. Mr Blick—Yes, I think I would. Senator ROBERT RAY—In this case the minister not only put out a press release—a selective press release I should say—but attached to it a restricted cable putting out that this had occurred under the previous government. I rush to say the restricted nature of the cable was as to timing of the time and not long-term. I concede that. Is that the normal sort of thing? Mr Blick—Obviously it is not normal, because the circumstances surrounding that case were fairly abnormal. The issue, if I had been consulted, would be really whether this was a deliberative document or one that for any other reason ought to be regarded as confidential to the government of the day. Without having it in front of me, obviously I cannot speculate about that here. Senator ROBERT RAY—But it is not the tradition of governments to go back into files of other governments and release them, is it? Mr Blick—Again, I cannot give you chapter and verse on that. Senator Hill—That is probably a bit tough, to be asking an officer what is the tradition of governments in this regard. It is fair to ask him what the rules are, I think. Senator ROBERT RAY—I will ask you whether your government will be bound by the procedures laid out in the Cabinet Handbook on this issue. Senator Hill—No, that is not what you are asking. You are asking what are the traditions, not what are the rules in the Cabinet Handbook and whether we will abide by the rules.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 265

Senator ROBERT RAY—All right. Do you think it is a breach of the rules to release these sorts of documents without consulting with previous ministers? Senator Hill—In that instance, I do not know. It was a document which simply recorded an historical fact, didn’t it? I do not see that it related to any policy issues. I would doubt that it was a breach, on what I understand the rule to be. But you asked me what I think practice is. I am sure there are exceptions over history if one thought it was worth while exploring the record, but I think that governments generally leave the previous records alone, whether they fall within the rule or not. Senator ROBERT RAY—Let us go to a more specific instance. On 8 April this year did the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet request of the Department of Administrative Services or the Attorney-General’s Department documents associated with the government going back to 1983 in regard to Senator Colston in relation to documents that would have been in the ambit of Mr Beazley and Mr Evans? It is 8 April. Senator Hill—We had better explore what the facts are. Mr Blick—You are testing my memory a bit here, Senator. I recall the Prime Minister asking Mr Beazley— Senator ROBERT RAY—No, it was before then. We are talking about 8 April. We are not talking about 9 April at the moment but 8 April. Did the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, not the Prime Minister— Mr Blick—I have no recollection of our doing so. Senator ROBERT RAY—So you do not know who initiated the first set of inquiries about access to these documents to the former Department of Administrative Services and the Attorney-General’s Department? Mr Blick—I would need to take that on notice. I cannot answer it off the top of my head here. Senator ROBERT RAY—Do you think you could get Mr Alex Lang across from the department to assist us with some of this? Mr Blick—I can undertake to seek some information from him. Senator ROBERT RAY—That is not the question I asked. I asked whether you could get him across here to this estimates committee to assist us. Senator FAULKNER—He is the officer responsible, isn’t he, Mr Blick, in the Access and Administrative Review Section. Mr Blick—He is in the Access and Administrative Review Section, that is true. In the ordinary course he would deal with things like freedom of information requests. Senator Hill—I understand he is a relatively junior officer. Senator FAULKNER—We need someone who is more senior, then, who can deal with these specific questions. Senator Hill—You have got someone more senior. Senator ROBERT RAY—Okay, we will proceed. Mr Blick, you are saying you have no recollection—probably because it did not occur, but I am checking with you first—of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet putting requests to the Department of

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 266 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Administrative Services and the Attorney-General’s Department on 8 April for access to documents of the previous government? Mr Blick—I have no recollection; that is true. Senator ROBERT RAY—Did you have knowledge that the requests to retrieve those documents were made of Mr Mellors and Mr Skehill on 8 April by their respective ministers, Mr Jull and Mr Williams? Mr Blick—Again, you are testing my memory. I cannot say that I have never been made aware of such requests. On the other hand, I do not have a clear recollection. Senator ROBERT RAY—Do you have a recollection that both Mr Mellors and Mr Skehill refused their respective ministers access on the basis of the guidelines in the cabinet handbook? Mr Blick—You are jogging my memory now. I think I can recall a conversation between Mr Skehill and me, which he initiated. I obviously cannot recall dates. Senator ROBERT RAY—I will assist you. We now move to 9 April. Mr Skehill rang you on the question of access. Do you respond to him that they are probably not entitled to access? Mr Blick—If we are talking about the same conversation, that is quite probably the case. I do not know that I would have put it quite in the exact terms that you have put it. Had I been asked that sort of question, I would have said that any government is ultimately entitled to access to any documents that are the property of the Commonwealth but that there are conventions surrounding the question of access to documents of previous governments. Without authority from someone within the previous government, in the case of documents as sensitive as the kind you are talking about, I would discourage the relevant minister from pursuing a request for access. Senator ROBERT RAY—That is good advice. However, you did phone back Mr Skehill later that day. Mr Blick—I probably did, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—You informed him that the Prime Minister had sought permission of Mr Beazley and Mr Evans for access? Mr Blick—I probably did, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Out of interest, did at any stage PM&C forward Mr Howard’s letter to the secretaries of DAS and A-G’s and Mr Beazley’s response, or was it all done just orally? Mr Blick—I cannot answer that question. Again, I can easily enough check and let you know. Senator Hill—Were they passed on? Mr Blick—The Prime Minister had an exchange of correspondence with Mr Beazley. The question is whether we ever showed that correspondence to other departments. Senator ROBERT RAY—We will come to that in a moment. While you were doing all this, Mr Peter Lahy from DAS rang you seeking similar guidance to what Mr Skehill had sought earlier on access to documents. Mr Blick—I do not remember it being Peter Lahy, but I remember having a conversation with someone from DAS. Again, my memory is obviously being stretched here. I think I may have initiated a phone call to one of the deputy secretaries in DAS in the first instance.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 267

Senator ROBERT RAY—You may have? Mr Blick—I may have, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—I have it slightly wrong. Mr Lahy originally rang Mr Skehill to see what they were doing. He related to him that he had had a conversation with you. He probably rang you—I do not think it is at all material—to seek similar advice. Mr Blick—As I say, my recollection of the matter, to the extent that I have one, is that I rang a deputy secretary in DAS to say that I had had the conversation with Mr Skehill and to relay the nature of the advice that I gave him. Obviously I was concerned that there might be a discrepancy in approach between two departments. Senator ROBERT RAY—So you do not have full knowledge of the position, but Mr Jull and Mr Williams have asked for the documents. Their secretaries have refused. They or their lesser lights ring you for guidance. You give them some guidance on this; it may not be definitive. It is then realised that a more appropriate course of action by someone, not necessarily you, is for Mr Howard to write to Mr Beazley seeking access. This occurs on 9 April. Mr Blick—Yes. Again, it is difficult for me to recall. I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if in the course of one of those conversations I canvassed the possibility of the Prime Minister seeking Mr Beazley’s consent, because that would have been the obvious thing to do. Senator ROBERT RAY—Was the letter to Mr Beazley drafted in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet or in the Prime Minister’s office? Mr Blick—I cannot answer off the top of my head. I would need to check. Senator ROBERT RAY—The two departments were then informed that the letter was on the way to Mr Beazley. Do you have any knowledge that that is what triggered the search for all the documents? Mr Blick—I do not have that knowledge. I recall having said to either or both that, in light of the fact that the Prime Minister was writing to Mr Beazley, it would be inappropriate to provide any documents before that letter was received. I cannot recall whether I would have said anything about the necessity to wait for a response, but I probably would have. That would not mean that it was inappropriate to search for the documents. I would have thought it sensible administrative practice to establish whether you had the documents or not. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. That is exactly what happened. A-G’s launched a very extensive search and eventually found them in a 1988 file. Does that accord with your memory? Mr Blick—It does not. Senator Hill—You are asking questions of A-G’s. You are asking whether A-G’s searched the records and, if so, when they did it. The concept of asking a third party when another department did the search seems to be a bit rough. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. It might be a bit more appropriate to pursue that with the Attorney-General’s Department. Are you aware that the actual letter to Mr Beazley was sent on 9 April and that there was a response by Mr Beazley received on 11 April? Mr Blick—I will take your word on the dates, Senator.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 268 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—When Mr Howard wrote to Mr Beazley on 9 April, he said that he sought all written advice and other relevant material tended to Mr Beazley as Acting Special Minister of State and to Senator Evans as Attorney-General concerning travel allowances and related matters involving Senator Colston which arose in 1983. Is that correct? Mr Blick—I do not have the words in front of me, but I would assume that is correct. Senator ROBERT RAY—And Mr Beazley responded in a conditional way, didn’t he? Mr Blick—To the best of my recollection, Mr Beazley’s response was equivocal. To put it another way, he did not give a direct yes or no to that. The condition he implied was that there should also be a search for records of the Fraser government. Senator ROBERT RAY—But, clearly, under the guidelines Mr Beazley is not entitled to those documents, is he? Mr Blick—I would have thought that is absolutely correct. Senator ROBERT RAY—I do not think I contest that. You would concede, Minister, that it was a good try but you would knock that part back. Senator Hill—Mr Beazley suggested that should happen, did he? Mr Blick—He did, yes. That is my recollection. I assume that Senator Ray has the actual words, but that is my recollection. Senator Hill—I think Senator Ray is conceding that Mr Beazley’s request was inconsistent with the guidelines. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. But Mr Beazley said, did he not, and I am just summarising now, ‘Yes, you can search for the records on the condition that I be given copies’? That is, Mr Beazley be given copies of what is found. Mr Blick—Again, I assume that what you are saying is right. That is roughly in accordance with my recollection. Senator ROBERT RAY—That would pass muster, I can assure you of that. Mr Howard writes to Mr Beazley on the 11th and passes on documents, does he not? Mr Blick—I cannot answer that question. I do not recall there ever being a letter back to Mr Beazley. Senator ROBERT RAY—So that letter was not prepared in PM&C? Senator Hill—No, that is not what his answer was. Mr Blick—I am sorry, I just cannot recall. Senator Hill—His answer was that he cannot recall such a letter. If he cannot recall such a letter, then he obviously cannot recall where it was prepared. Senator ROBERT RAY—But you did inform A-G’s and DAS that Mr Beazley had written back with permission, did you not? Mr Blick—I think I or someone would have done so. Senator ROBERT RAY—Well, it was you, wasn’t it? Mr Blick—I am not denying it; I just cannot recollect whether I specifically did or someone else did.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 269

Senator ROBERT RAY—But it was put to Mr Mellors and Mr Skehill that the previous difficulties—they had to withdraw advices and everything else—had all been overcome as Mr Beazley had given permission for this to occur. Senator Hill—What is the specific question? Senator ROBERT RAY—I will take you back a yard then to understand the question: Mr Blick’s advice—because of the crucial role PM&C plays—is asked on access and, on balance, I think Mr Blick gave some very good advice when he said, ‘Look, it may just not be possible.’ However, what changes in the meantime is that Mr Howard writes to Mr Beazley, and Mr Beazley writes back. Then the two departments are informed by someone—I am just trying to find out who—who says, ‘It is okay, Mr Beazley has ticked it,’ and all the previous difficulties fall away. I am asking who informed the departments? Senator Hill—The first question is: do you know if the departments were advised by PM&C that the previous obstacle had been overcome? Mr Blick—I think it is highly likely that is the case, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—It is a bit hard when you cannot quite recall this, but the sort of Beazley condition that he be given all documents was not passed on. Mr Blick—Again, I think it is highly unlikely that, if I or someone else were conveying the fact of a letter from Mr Beazley to the Prime Minister, we would not have conveyed the nature of the contents. Senator ROBERT RAY—Sorry. Mr Blick—I will repeat what I just said: I think it is highly unlikely that, if I or someone else were conveying the fact that Mr Beazley had written back to the Prime Minister, we would not have given a faithful account of the contents of his letter. We may also quite possibly have said that, in our view, it removed the obstacle which we saw as having arisen previously. Senator ROBERT RAY—Okay. That having been done and we have cleared what we think are all legal and other matters—the Archives Act is covered off and the conventions are covered off—both departments do their search to varying degrees of efficiency. I understand DAS were able to find the documents easily while Attorney-General’s—take my word for it— had a lot of trouble because they were in another file but then, through good research work, they find the documents. Can you tell us where those documents went to once they left the department? Did they go to the relevant minister’s office, did they come to PM&C or did they go directly to the Prime Minister’s office? Mr Blick—No, I cannot tell you that. I would just be speculating. They did not come to PM&C. Senator ROBERT RAY—I did not think they did, and that is really what I was trying to establish. So PM&C—not your responsibility yet—is out of the loop because you do not actually see these documents. They go directly to the relevant minister—I do not think that is inappropriate—to Mr Williams and Mr Jull who pass them on to Mr Howard’s office and bypass you. When I say ‘bypass you’, that is not a prejudicial— Mr Blick—If they went to Mr Howard’s office, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—‘Bypass you’ is not a prejudicial statement. Senator Hill—But do we know that they went to the relevant minister?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 270 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Blick—No, as I say, I can only speculate that that was what had happened since there had been requests from the relevant ministers. Senator Hill—Again, that ought to be pursued with the department that has first-hand knowledge. Senator ROBERT RAY—But you do know those documents went to the Prime Minister’s office. Mr Blick—Again, I do not personally know at all, I am afraid. One would assume that that was logical, given that the Prime Minister had made the request. Can I just add to my answer for completeness: in quite recent times, we have had access to an Attorney-General’s Department file on which there was some documentation— Senator ROBERT RAY—But not at the time—we are back in April at the moment. Mr Blick—This was only in the last month or so. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, we will get to October in due course. Senator FAULKNER—Can I just ask in relation to this: given that Mr Howard wrote on 11 April to Mr Beazley—you would recall that, Mr Blick—attaching copies of documents made available under the special access provisions, clearly Mr Howard and, one assumes, his office had access at that point on 11 April. Do you know if that letter was generated in the department, in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, or in the Prime Minister’s own office? These documents were provided to Mr Beazley with a covering letter from Mr Howard on 11 April. So I suspect there is not an enormous amount of issue here as to whether at some point they found their way to the PMO. Mr Blick—Senator Ray asked me the same question before and I said I could not recall whether the letter was drafted in the department or in the Prime Minister’s office. Senator FAULKNER—It is a different letter, Mr Blick. Senator Hill—I do not think we have talked about this letter yet. Mr Blick—The answer is the same, but we will check. Senator FAULKNER—Mr Blick, but the issue is: given that under Mr Howard’s signature on 11 April the documents were provided to Mr Blick and given that those documents you have indicated were not within the confines of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the only conclusion is that they were at the Prime Minister’s office. One assumes he was not signing such a letter and providing those documents. There is no other possible conclusion that you could draw, surely. Senator Hill—That is a conclusion that you draw from the evidence that you have. It is legitimate for you to draw such a conclusion, but what you can ask of this officer is his involvement in the matter and he is seeking to answer those questions. Senator ROBERT RAY—We are actually asking broader than that, Senator Hill. Senator Hill—You might have to ask me. Senator ROBERT RAY—No, we are asking broader. The crucial question we are asking at the moment, which I think is essential for PM&C to answer—and I think they have, but we will just get one more confirmation—is: in all this process, when the documents are actually found, they do not actually come to PM&C—and that is crucial for other reasons— they go straight to the Prime Minister’s office?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 271

Senator Hill—No, that is not what you have been told. Senator ROBERT RAY—I think I have. Senator Hill—With respect, I do not think you have. I recall you being told that we do not believe they went to PM&C. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. Senator Hill—And Senator Faulkner drew the conclusion that they had gone to the Prime Minister’s office because the Prime Minister apparently signed a subsequent letter that related to them. Senator FAULKNER—On 11 April we know that Mr Howard wrote to Mr Beazley attaching the documents in response to Mr Beazley’s request for the selfsame documents. Mr Howard sent that letter. Senator Hill—Yes, I know. You have told us that three times, but what do you want to ask? Senator FAULKNER—Fine; it is pretty clear then. Senator ROBERT RAY—It is essential for us to establish for the integrity of PM&C, basically, that they were not given these documents. Senator Hill—We have answered that question. Senator ROBERT RAY—Good, we have got to that point. Therefore, PM&C were not asked for a ruling nor did they have any input into what documents were passed on to Mr Beazley. Senator Hill—If we take that as a question and put a ‘was’ in front of it, what is the answer? Do you know? Mr Blick—The answer is that, at the request as I understand it of the Prime Minister’s office, we sent an officer to the Prime Minister’s office to check whether there were any documents in the material that was proposed to be sent to Mr Beazley that really did not fall within the terms of the request. Although I said just now that we did not receive the documents, which is my recollection, I have been reminded that this request was made by the office and that we sent this person to assist in checking the documents. Senator ROBERT RAY—Whom did you send? Mr Blick—We sent Mr Lang, whom we referred to before. Senator ROBERT RAY—He was sent to the office to give advice on what documents were to be handed over to Mr Beazley? Mr Blick—Essentially, to give advice on whether there were any documents in the ones that had been received by the Prime Minister’s office that did not fall within the terms of the request. Senator ROBERT RAY—But you see we have got a situation—take my word for it or otherwise, but we will establish it—where the Secretary to the Department of Administrative Services and the Secretary to the Attorney-General’s Department refused the current government access to previous government files. Therefore, documents are produced only on the basis, basically, of Mr Beazley’s tick. Are you then saying that some of those documents can go to Mr Beazley and not others, but using that authority the government can have access to other documents? Senator Hill—I think that is drawing a fairly long bow.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 272 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—No, it is not. Senator Hill—I suppose the real issue is how you interpret and apply these rules. The rules seem to be fairly ambiguous. From the way I interpret what I have heard this morning, they certainly should be interpreted cautiously. In fact, under such a circumstance, it would be better to obtain the consent of Mr Beazley. Senator ROBERT RAY—With respect, Senator Hill, you are totally missing the point or you are understanding it too well—one or the other. Let me take you through it slowly so you understand. That was not a reflection, but it is complex, I concede. An attempt by the current government—not necessarily in any malevolent sense—was made to access previous government files and two departmental secretaries basically said no. The Prime Minister wrote to Mr Beazley and is then told Mr Beazley has agreed to access. We are fine to that point. They then provide the documents to the Prime Minister’s office—we now know that because you actually sent someone up there. Senator Hill—We do not know that they provided the documents to the Prime Minister’s office. Senator ROBERT RAY—By some form of osmosis the documents got from the two departments into the Prime Minister’s office. Senator FAULKNER—Into the Prime Minister’s hands. Senator ROBERT RAY—Or office. Senator Hill—I know that, on the basis of what Senator Faulkner has said— Senator ROBERT RAY—They get into the Prime Minister’s office because you were asked to send an officer to make some assessments. This is the question: if in fact any of those documents that Mr Beazley has given permission to be released are not given to Mr Beazley, then they are not available to the current government. Mr Blick, that is correct, isn’t it? Senator Hill—They may not fall within the preclusion in the guidelines. Senator ROBERT RAY—But you see, Senator Hill, they have been provided by two departments to the Prime Minister’s office because Mr Beazley has given permission, not as a direct request from government to those departments that has basically already been refused. Senator Hill—As I understand it, the request was made, and I have to say that my only knowledge is what I am hearing today. The secretaries indicated that they thought it was basically in contradiction of the guidelines. That advice was on the basis of assistance from PM&C. Mr Beazley consented. I do not know the extent of his consent as I have not seen this letter, but broadly that was drawn. What did he consent to? Senator ROBERT RAY—He consented to the release of the documents that the current government provided, and he was provided with copies himself. Senator Hill—What documents? How did he describe what he was consenting to? Senator ROBERT RAY—Responding to a request from Prime Minister Howard in writing. But to get back to the point— Senator Hill—There may well have been documents provided—I do not know—that did not specifically relate to what Mr Beazley— Senator ROBERT RAY—Let us help you out here and concede you part of the way. In the raft of documents that came over to the PMO, there could have been documents not relevant to these issues that should not have been passed on to Mr Beazley. At the same time,

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 273

I am saying that they therefore cannot be retained or used by the current government because it is in breach of the convention of access. Senator Hill—Not if they are in breach of the convention of access. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. We sent Mr Alex Lang over. Did he ever report back to you? Mr Blick—I understand he did, yes, but not to me personally. I understand he did a report. Senator ROBERT RAY—What was the basis of that? Mr Blick—Again, we need to check, but we believe there was no substantial change to the documents as between the ones that were provided to the Prime Minister’s office and the ones that were provided to Mr Beazley. Senator ROBERT RAY—We exempt the Newman documents. We have established that. That is not relevant to us because it was a previous government again. Senator FAULKNER—I may perhaps help Senator Hill out here because there is a question in his mind about whether these documents were provided to Mr Howard or to Mr Howard’s office. In Mr Howard’s letter to Mr Beazley of 11 April—this is under his signature—Mr Howard says: The departments concerned have instituted a search for such material and have provided it to me. Perhaps that clarifies it beyond question. Senator Hill—That obviously stands as it has been said. Senator ROBERT RAY—So what you are saying, to the best of your knowledge, Mr Blick, is that the documents as discovered were passed on to Mr Beazley? Mr Blick—To the best of my knowledge, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Senator Hill, you would be aware that some adverse publicity to Mr Beazley and Mr Evans came out of some of these documents. Would you concede that? Senator Hill—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Can you explain to this committee why a critical aide-memoire of 18 September 1983 would be deleted from the material passed on to Mr Beazley? Senator Hill—No, obviously I cannot. I do not know the document. Senator ROBERT RAY—Can I just remind you and ask you whether you confirm that the Prime Minister said this in the parliament? On 29 September 1997, Mr Howard said in parliament: . . . it is coming from people who engaged in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and coming from people who conspired to ignore the advice of the Crown Solicitor and the head of the Attorney- General’s Department... On 30 September he said: The Leader of the Opposition . . . and Evans got their heads together and said, ‘Let’s ignore Pat Brazil’s advice. Let’s ignore the Crown Solicitor’s advice.’ Will you concede that the Prime Minister said those two things as little as six weeks ago? Senator Hill—If you are reading from the Hansard, I do not have to concede it. Senator ROBERT RAY—Right. Someone from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet read this, didn’t they, Mr Blick? Mr Blick—Read the Hansard?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 274 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—Read Mr Howard’s comments. Mr Blick—Certainly, yes. Senator Hill—I would hope they do. Senator ROBERT RAY—At the same time, they received a letter from former Attorney- General Mr Evans asking whether all the documents had been passed on and, in particular, whether the aide-memoire of 18 September 1983 had been passed to him or why it had not. Senator Hill—This is a letter from former Senator Evans to whom? Senator ROBERT RAY—I assume to the Prime Minister. I can find the letter for you. Senator Hill—Are you aware of a letter written by Mr Evans relating to these matters? Senator FAULKNER—It was to the Prime Minister, Senator Hill. Mr Blick—I was going to allude to that before when I was told that it would be brought up later. Senator Hill—Mr Blick is aware of such a letter. Senator ROBERT RAY—What steps has the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet taken to respond to that letter? Mr Blick—We sought advice from the Attorney-General’s Department about the contents of the files that might relate to the matters that Mr Evans was seeking further details of. We obtained a copy of that file. We may even have obtained the original file—I cannot recall— from the A-G’s Department. We provided the Prime Minister, to the best of my recollection, with a letter responding to Mr Evans and copies of the documents that were seen to be relevant to his request. Senator ROBERT RAY—When did you inform the Prime Minister of this? Mr Blick—I cannot give you an exact date, but it was some time in the last few weeks. Senator ROBERT RAY—That is not good enough. I am sorry. Can we just be a little more precise on that? We are dealing now with only a six-week period since these statements were made in parliament. Mr Blick—About a fortnight ago, we think, Senator. Senator ROBERT RAY—I see—a fortnight ago. This is after the Prime Minister has come back— Mr Blick—Can I just do a bit more checking? Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, I would advise you to check. Mr Blick—As soon as he came back from overseas. Senator ROBERT RAY—What, on the day he came back from overseas? Mr Blick—Can we take that on notice? Senator ROBERT RAY—No. I need to know that. Senator Hill—You might need to know, but you can only get the knowledge that we have. Let us see whether we can find out. Is there anyone here who knows what day? Mr Blick—No, there is no-one here who knows what day, but we can make a phone call. Senator ROBERT RAY—Someone can make a telephone call now. Mr Blick—We will do that.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 275

Senator ROBERT RAY—I would appreciate that. Have inquiries been made as to how this document disappeared? Senator Hill—What do you mean, ‘disappeared’? Mr Blick—Can I answer the question? I do not accept that it did disappear, Senator. Senator Hill—I do not think you can answer the question because the basis has not been made. Mr Blick—I do not believe it did disappear. I have no reason to believe it disappeared. Senator ROBERT RAY—You are not denying that this aide-memoire of 18 September 1983 did not go to the Prime Minister’s office around 10 or 11 April 1997? Senator Hill—Why do you not ask him if— Senator ROBERT RAY—Did it, to your knowledge? Senator Hill—That is the question. Mr Blick—To the best of my knowledge, it did not go to the Prime Minister’s office. But again, obviously without— Senator ROBERT RAY—Mr Blick, we know that staff in the Prime Minister’s office were quoting from this document—but only selectively—to journalists in the two weeks after the documents came across to the Prime Minister’s office. Senator Hill—You can make that assertion but you can only ask him of his knowledge. You have asked Mr Blick the question and he has answered it. Senator ROBERT RAY—You have gone back and re-read Mr Alan Ramsey’s article, have you not? Mr Alex Lang has; we know that. Senator Hill—Are you asking him whether he has read Ramsey’s article? Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. Mr Blick—I think I have read Mr Ramsey’s article. Senator ROBERT RAY—You went back to read it, did you not, when this issue came up in October? Mr Blick—I may have done, Senator. Senator FAULKNER—In fact, you received a formal advice in relation to some aspects of Mr Ramsey’s article, did you not, Mr Blick? Mr Blick—I may have done. I really cannot recall. Senator FAULKNER—You did, did you not, Mr Blick? Mr Blick—I am not denying it, Senator. I am simply saying I cannot recall. Senator Hill—Mr Chairman, a bit of intimidation in the Senate is good healthy stuff, but I remember these particular senators being very critical of one of my colleague’s handling of estimates committees in relation to officials. Senator FAULKNER—I want to make it very clear that no-one is trying to intimidate anyone but we do want some answers to the questions. Senator Hill—It is getting a little bit that way, in my view.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 276 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator FAULKNER—Is it true that a minute went from Mr Alex Lang, under his signature, on 7 October through Mr Bonsey and Mr Moss to you, Mr Blick, headed ‘Request by Senator Evans for access to papers relating to Senator Colston’? Mr Blick—I assume it is true, yes. As I say, I still do not recall it. Senator FAULKNER—Does the first paragraph of that minute to you actually indicate that Senator Evans has written to the Prime Minister seeking access to the minute? Senator Hill—He has said that he does not recall it. You are now asking him whether that refreshes his memory; is that the question? Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, I think it is. Senator Hill—No, it is not, but you ought to put it that way if you want to put it legitimately. Senator FAULKNER—I was going to ask whether this jogs Mr Blick’s memory in relation to this particular minute. The first paragraph also indicated that Mr Alan Ramsey of the Sydney Morning Herald referred to this particular minute in an article dated 19 April 1997. You would think that Prime Minister and Cabinet would have all these Sydney Morning Herald articles on file but apparently not—‘we are trying to track down a copy of the article’. Senator Hill—Does that— Mr Blick—No, I am sorry, it still does not, but if you keep reading, Senator, I probably will remember. Senator ROBERT RAY—Can we ask Mr Bonsey to come up and ask him whether he has ever seen this? Senator Hill—Yes. To assist me, what is the date of this alleged minute? Senator FAULKNER—This is 7 October. Mr Bonsey, have you seen a minute from Mr Alex Lang to Mr Blick, through yourself and Mr Moss, in relation to Senator Evans’s request to access particular material? Mr Bonsey—I returned from overseas on 7 October and certainly have a recollection that an issue that had recently arisen was the letter from Mr Evans. I do not have a specific recollection of a minute from Mr Lang, but that is extremely likely. Senator ROBERT RAY—Did you refresh your memory about Mr Alan Ramsey’s article at any stage in the last five weeks? Mr Bonsey—Because I had been away and was not familiar with some of the recent background, I wanted to feel confident that I knew the extent of the documents and I do recall reading that Sydney Morning Herald article. Senator ROBERT RAY—Do you think Mr Alan Ramsey was quoting from the aide- memoire, in part or in full? Senator Hill—He cannot answer that. Senator ROBERT RAY—He can actually. He has read the aide-memoire of 18 September. Senator Hill—That is a grossly unfair question. Ask him what he did, what he perceived and what action he took. Senator ROBERT RAY—Have you read the aide-memoire of 18 September 1983 now? Mr Bonsey—I have. Senator ROBERT RAY—Have you read Mr Alan Ramsey’s article of 19 April?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 277

Mr Bonsey—I have. Senator FAULKNER—Was Mr Ramsey’s quotation of part of that aide-memoire absolutely accurate? Mr Bonsey—I did not do an immediate comparison. Senator FAULKNER—Some of us have. Senator Hill—Then some of us could draw conclusions. Mr Bonsey—Obviously he was well informed. Senator ROBERT RAY—One thing we know is that he was not well informed from Mr Beazley’s office because we never got the document. Senator Hill—We do not know that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, the officers at the table know that. Don’t they? They know that. I know it. I have seen the documents that came over from Mr Beazley’s office. I cannot imagine why Mr Evans would write if we had been given the document. Senator Hill—No, I agree. I can see that. But I have not seen the schedule of documents that were given to— Senator FAULKNER—There has also been, Mr Bonsey or Mr Blick—I appreciate, Mr Blick, that you may not know this—telephonic contact between Senator Evans’s office and officers of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to this matter. Mr Bonsey—Not that I am aware of. Mr Blick—Not that I am aware of, either. Senator FAULKNER—It is even reported in minute form to both of you. I am surprised that you are not aware of that. Senator Hill—What is reported in minute form? Senator FAULKNER—The fact that there has been telephonic contact between staff members of Senator Evans— Senator MURRAY—Ex-Senator Evans. Senator FAULKNER—Between ex-Senator Evans’s office—my colleague here is very relieved to hear it was ex-Senator Evans’s office—and officers of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on this very issue. There has not only been correspondence; there is a range of subsequent action departmentally, but there has also been a degree of informal communication. Senator Hill—They have been asked whether they knew of the phone call. You are now asking them whether they know of a minute that refers to the phone call. Do you know of any such minute? Mr Blick—Neither of us can remember this, but obviously it does not mean that we are denying that it occurred. Senator FAULKNER—I think one of ex-Senator Evans’s staff members made it very clear that Mr Evans was taking a very close interest in all this to officers of your department. Senator ROBERT RAY—Anyway, let us go back to Mr Howard’s comments in the parliament when he accused former Senator Evans of being a perverter of the course of justice and having defied the advice of the head of the Attorney-General’s Department, a Mr Tom

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 278 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Sherman, who was Crown Counsel at the time. Was he? Mr Blick, have you read the aide- memoire of 18 September? Mr Blick—Yes, I have. Senator ROBERT RAY—Feel free—whoever wants to answer the questions. I am right in saying that, in that aide-memoire, both Mr Brazil and Mr Sherman again confirm that Mr Holdich’s view of the Attorney-General’s view was minuted wrong, aren’t I? Mr Blick—That is my recollection, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—That means there are now two documents—one that has been released to us and one that has not been released to us—that affirm Mr Holdich’s view as being wrong—his view of the meeting, his interpretation of the meeting was wrong. Mr Blick—That is probably right, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—I go to paragraph 5 of the missing aide-memoire—the one that was not passed on to us. It was not passed on to Mr Beazley. We have not yet established whether it went to the Prime Minister’s office; we will come back to that. Paragraph 5 says the Attorney-General indicated in these circumstances— Senator Hill—I do not know that it was not passed on to Mr Beazley. What is the evidence for that? Senator ROBERT RAY—We have checked with Mr Beazley. Senator Hill—That is all very interesting, but— Senator FAULKNER—And Mr Evans and his office— Senator Hill—was there a schedule attached to the items? Senator FAULKNER—put a great deal of effort into trying to get a copy of it. Don’t be ridiculous! Senator ROBERT RAY—Don’t try to fly this one. This is a document completely not on the public record that clears Senator Evans totally, and of all the documents, Senator Hill, this is the one document that goes missing. Come off it! Senator Hill—I do not know if it is the one document that has gone missing. Senator ROBERT RAY—We do. Why wasn’t it provided? Senator Hill—You are obviously asserting that. I am not quarrelling that you are asserting it. Senator ROBERT RAY—We will find out tomorrow. Senator Hill—You obviously have a lot more knowledge of this matter than I do. Senator ROBERT RAY—That is why we are going to the officers. We are not bothering you with it because we do not think you are across it, and I do not blame you for that; you have got a lot of other duties. But let us go to the issue. We will go tomorrow to Attorney- General’s to find out whether the aide-memoire of 18 September 1983 was passed to the Prime Minister’s office on or about 10 April. Senator Hill—That is fine. Senator ROBERT RAY—We will do that. We will go there. But back to the document. Can you confirm that in paragraph 5 it says:

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 279

The Attorney-General indicated that in these circumstances no further action by way of investigation was being contemplated at this stage. Both Mr Sherman and I indicated that we thought that this was an appropriate course to follow. Mr Blick—That is my recollection of the document, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Did they go on in this signed aide-memoire to say: The considerations that weighed with us were as follows: When informally consulted in late August our conclusions were that a decision had to be made on whether the matters required investigation and that there was no legal evidence at all at this stage of any offence. Mr Blick—Yes, that is my recollection. Senator ROBERT RAY—But basically what we have here is a document signed by Mr Sherman and Mr Brazil concurring with the Attorney-General’s view. Therefore, Minister, how is it that the Prime Minister on 30 September—and the Treasurer the next day, but we will let that go by—can have continued to claim that the then Attorney-General, Senator Evans, defied the advice of the head of Attorney-General’s Department and the Crown Counsel, the Chief Counsel? Senator Hill—I do not know the answer to that, but I am quite happy to do a search of the material. I do not particularly want to, but if you want me to research the matter I will. I will see if I can provide you with a better answer. Senator ROBERT RAY—We come back to this question, don’t we, Senator Hill? If this particular document—I say ‘if’, and we will establish that—the aide-memoire, which is the critical one in terms of— Senator Hill—But you would have to look at the documents as a whole. I do not know where this fits in the context— Senator ROBERT RAY—With respect, you did not mind taking just one aspect of Mr Holdich’s report, blowing it up everywhere, feeding it out to journos and emphasising that; whereas with the other two documents—Senator Evans’s clarification, done in 1983 and this aide-memoire—you did not put any of that on the public record. So do not talk about taking things out of context. Senator Hill—Well, you have obviously read the documents and you have read them in context. I have not seen the documents, let alone read them, but if you wanted me to explain why a particular part of the document was taken without reference to other parts then I would do the research and try to give you an answer. Senator ROBERT RAY—We come back to this point, Senator Hill. You cannot answer whether Attorney-General’s sent this document to the Prime Minister on 10-11 April. I understand that. But if he did, these questions have to be answered, don’t they: why wasn’t it passed on to the opposition; did Mr Alex Lang give the Prime Minister’s office advice that this was one document not to be passed on? Senator Hill—I think that they are perfectly legitimate questions, assuming— Senator ROBERT RAY—So we would need an answer. Can I put this to you, Senator Hill. If in fact there was a valid reason for this document not to be passed on, that means it would have been given a great deal of consideration and therefore there would have been knowledge of its contents. Basically, we want to know who in the Prime Minister’s office knew about this document, had access to it and knew its contents.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 280 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator Hill—I can see your point. I cannot on the face of it see why, if it had been provided, it would not be included in those of which notice is given to Mr Beazley. I do not know the answer. Senator ROBERT RAY—You would not think that a cynic would say that the one document that contradicts the one adverse finding against Mr Beazley and Mr Evans, the one document that clears them of that, disappears. You would not think I was being a bit cynical to say, ‘Why has that one document not been passed on when we would not have had the kerfuffle at the time we did?’ Senator Hill—Except that, if you are right, it is all so blatant it is almost hard to accept. Senator FAULKNER—It is blatant, and we do find it very hard to accept. Senator Hill—Well, perhaps you are wrong in fact. That is what I am suggesting. Senator ROBERT RAY—It is fair enough for you to say, Senator Hill, that we cannot definitively prove that extracts from this and other documents were read selectively to journalists. We know they were annoyed they were not given a sighting of them; they were only being read to them out of the Prime Minister’s office—not by the Prime Minister, I hasten to add, but by one of his flunkeys. Journalists did not always run the story, because they could not actually see the documents; they were only getting extracts read out to them. At the time we did not know what we were fighting. How can we defend when we do not have the documents available to defend ourselves with? Senator Hill—Did Mr Beazley ask for the set of documents from the Attorney-General? Senator FAULKNER—Mr Beazley indicated in fact that he would appreciate copies of whatever documents were passed to the Prime Minister’s office, because he made the point— Senator Hill—He asked that of A-G’s? Senator FAULKNER—No, he asked that of the Prime Minister. Senator Hill—But we do not know that the document went to the Prime Minister. Senator FAULKNER—He made that request and was very frank, because he indicated that the opposition’s records were incomplete—hardly surprising given the timing— Senator Hill—What I do not understand is why, if he believed that, he did not ask for the file himself—which I understand is within the guidelines—of the A-G’s. Senator FAULKNER—Obviously you are unaware of the fact that ex-Senator Evans has spent a great deal of time trying to get access to this very document. Senator Hill—From the A-G’s? Senator FAULKNER—His communications have been—as I think the evidence has indicated to you, as Mr Blick and Mr Bonsey can confirm—that Mr Evans went direct to the Prime Minister. Senator Hill—But you are asserting a lot on the basis of your belief that this document was in the possession of the Prime Minister. So far we have not had any evidence to demonstrate that, whereas I would have thought that if Mr Evans were particularly interested in the first instance he would have gone to the Attorney-General and asked for the file, which, I understand from what has been read out today, he would be entitled to receive. Senator ROBERT RAY—I think that that is a bit of semantics, but let us go back to the fact that you say we have not actually made the claim yet that the Prime Minister has sighted this document. We have not made that claim yet, otherwise what he said in the House on 30

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 281

September would be one of the most blatant cases of misleading in the history of this parliament. What we have not been able to establish through the PM&C people is whether this document was in the Prime Minister’s office—not necessarily in the Prime Minister’s hand— Senator Hill—I know what you mean. Senator ROBERT RAY—On about 10 or 11 April. But what we do know is that an officer from PM&C went over to view the documents. I think we are entitled to ask that officer: did he sight this document at the time; did he give advice on it? If indeed it transpires that the Attorney-General’s Department did not pass this on to the Prime Minister’s office it still raises the question of why someone senior in the Prime Minister’s media office is quoting out of this document to several journalists following 11 April. It beggars belief that he got a copy out of A-G’s. Senator Hill—I do not know where he would have got it if that is what occurred, but you are asking us to assume that he was quoting from that aide-memoire. What we have established is that it seems that the Ramsey quotes—I do not know that we have established that from these officers but you are telling us that you have compared both—seemed to be in the same terms. Senator ROBERT RAY—Mr Bonsey said it was pretty close. I think that is as much as we can ask of public servants. Senator Hill—One possible explanation is that this aide-memoire and the contents were quoted in some other document. Senator ROBERT RAY—Really? Which other document? Senator Hill—I have no idea. I am just giving you another possible scenario. Senator ROBERT RAY—Mr Blick, have you seen another document that this aide- memoire is quoted in? Mr Blick—I have not myself. Senator ROBERT RAY—Mr Bonsey? Mr Bonsey—No, Senator. Senator ROBERT RAY—I did not think so. Senator FAULKNER—It is a little fanciful, Senator Hill. Senator ROBERT RAY—Good try. Senator Hill—I will give you another try if you like. Senator FAULKNER—Make it better. Make it at least believable. Senator Hill—When you have established the path of that aide-memoire. Senator ROBERT RAY—How are we going on finding Mr Alex Lang to assist us with our inquiries? Senator Hill—I have reservations about calling junior officers. Senator ROBERT RAY—But in this case we have had evidence from Mr Blick that he was the one that went over. Mr Blick cannot answer on his behalf. Senator Hill—I think Mr Blick could be asked to establish the facts. I think that is legitimate.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 282 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator FAULKNER—Who heads up the access and administrative review section? Mr Bonsey—At present there is a section head who looks after the access and administrative review section and a legal section. Senator ROBERT RAY—Who is that? Mr Bonsey—Mr Macgill. He would not have been involved with any consideration of it. Senator FAULKNER—Why would that be, Mr Bonsey? Mr Bonsey—Because it was not that arrangement at that stage. Senator FAULKNER—Who was the relevant SES officer at that time? Mr Bonsey—The time we are talking about is April? It would have been Mr Bluck, who is no longer in my division. Senator ROBERT RAY—What you are saying to us, Senator Hill, is that you cannot deny this document was in the Prime Minister’s office around about 10 or 11 April, but you do not really want to find out today whether it was. That is what you are telling us. Senator Hill—I beg your pardon? Senator ROBERT RAY—You cannot deny that this aide-memoire of 18 September 1993 was in the Prime Minister’s office around about 10 or 11 April, but you do not want to make the necessary inquiries to find out. Senator Hill—I do not know why you do not ask Attorney-General’s whether it was forwarded. Senator ROBERT RAY—Because Attorney-General’s are tomorrow and you are here today. Basically what I want to know is: if it did come to the Prime Minister’s office who deleted it and why? That is basically what I want to know. But we have to establish whether it was there or not, and you will not do it. You are hiding behind: ‘Oh, he is a junior officer. We don’t want to pull a junior officer in.’ Senator Hill—No, I am not. I am not doing that at all with respect, Senator. I am not sure that it is good practice to be dragging junior officers before this place and working them over. Senator ROBERT RAY—I do not even require him necessarily to come to the table, if Mr Blick wants to turn around and whisper to him. It is up to you to say which witnesses are here unless we try to invoke the powers. We have never demanded witnesses here generally, have we? We have requested. In this case, all it requires is Mr Blick to turn around in his chair and confirm his answers. We do not have to grill Mr Lang here, if you think he is too junior. Senator Hill—I think it is a legitimate question if an officer of PM&C was asked to give advice on the papers that were delivered, that we find out what documents he was asked to give advice on. I think that is legitimate. I will do that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Do you think we could have an answer just after lunch? Senator Hill—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—I am not trying to put an absolute deadline on that. Senator Hill—I think that is reasonable. Senator ROBERT RAY—If we can establish whether this was not in the Prime Minister’s office at all, we still have the question as to why it was not. Senator Hill—It is still a bit of a mystery.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 283

Senator ROBERT RAY—It was in a package of papers discovered in the 1988 file of Mr Brazil, not in the 1983 file. They were all found by AG’s in a 1988 file in relation to Mr Brazil. That is how they were found. It was not as though one could have gone missing. That is where they were found the second time. Can I ask Mr Blick this: you also asked Administrative Services to go back through their files, didn’t you, at some stage in October 1997? Mr Blick—I myself did not, no. Senator ROBERT RAY—Mr Bonsey, do you recall that? Mr Bonsey—No. Senator ROBERT RAY—Anybody further down the food chain? No? Senator Hill—Are you wanting to ask whether PM&C asked Administrative Services to search their records— Senator ROBERT RAY—Again. Senator Hill—Again? Senator ROBERT RAY—In October 1997. AG’s were asked, weren’t they? We know that. Mr Blick—Yes. Senator Hill—I see, in response to Mr Evans’s request. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. Mr Blick—We may have asked Finance and Administration but neither of us can recall doing so. We doubt whether we would have done because clearly it was material that would have been on an Attorney-General’s file. Senator ROBERT RAY—You did, but that is as far as it need go. Senator FAULKNER—Mr Lang provided you with a report after his involvement with the Prime Minister’s office on this matter, I think you indicated to us before. I do not want to put words in your mouth. Mr Blick—That is our recollection, yes. Senator FAULKNER—Was that a written report, Mr Blick? Mr Blick—That is our recollection. Senator FAULKNER—Would you be able to provide a copy of that report to the committee? Senator Hill—We will follow that one up and see if we can provide it to the committee. I do not know what is in it. Senator FAULKNER—You are indicating that you do not want Mr Lang here to give evidence to the committee. Would that be able to be provided to us as soon as possible? Senator Hill—As I said, I will see if it can be provided to the committee. I do not know the contents of it. Senator FAULKNER—Could you establish that over the luncheon break and if it cannot be provided perhaps you could explain to us why that would be the case? Mr Blick, who made the decision in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet where former Senator Evans’s request for access to these papers ought to be directed; in other words, directed to the Prime Minister’s office or referred to the Attorney-General’s Department? You were asked

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 284 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997 to provide that advice by one of your junior officers. Can you indicate to us what advice you provided? Mr Blick—It would not be usually the case that one would do other than seek advice from the agency which we expected to hold the papers about the existence of the papers, following which we would provide advice to the Prime Minister to enable him to reply to the letter. Is that an answer to your question? Senator FAULKNER—Given the fact that the Prime Minister’s office had been so involved with the previous provision of papers to Mr Beazley, one of your junior officers asked for you, Mr Blick, to make a decision on whether the Prime Minister’s office or the Attorney-General’s Department would be the appropriate place for former Senator Evans’s request for access to be directed. I appreciate the processes that you speak of, but what I would like to understand from you, Mr Blick, is what your decision was, to go to the PMO or to go to the Attorney- General’s office? Mr Blick—I think I understand your question. The issue that I would have been asked to decide on was who would actually provide the documents if they were provided to Mr Evans. In other words, whether it should be the Prime Minister who provided them direct to him or whether— Senator FAULKNER—That is not right, with respect, Mr Blick. A junior officer in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet indicated that he would have appreciated some indication of whether you would prefer ex-Senator Evans’s request to be directed to the Prime Minister’s office or the Attorney-General’s Department. Mr Blick—If I can say so— Senator FAULKNER—I have absolutely no doubt that a minute to that effect went to you. What I am interested in knowing is whether you made a decision or gave advice on that issue. Mr Blick—My answer to a request of that kind would be that Mr Evans had already directed his request to the Prime Minister. So the question of directing it to the Prime Minister is not a relevant question. The issue would be who provided the access not to whom the access request should be directed. If I was asked for that advice then I would— Senator FAULKNER—Were you concerned at any point about the possibility that, given you again had a minute before you that indicated that possibly the Prime Minister— Senator Hill—Did I mishear you? Do you concede this minute? Mr Blick—I do not recall the minute, but if I were given a minute in those terms I would regard it as being irrelevant. Senator Hill—He does not recall the minute. Senator FAULKNER—That is a little cute. Senator Hill—So you cannot ask him questions arising out of his recollection. Senator FAULKNER—So Mr Bonsey recalls the minute and Mr Blick does not, is that fair? Senator Hill—Do you recall such a minute, Mr Bonsey? Mr Bonsey—That is certainly a possibility. I have a recollection of a minute and it is quite possible. Senator FAULKNER—You must have a better memory.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 285

Mr Bonsey—It is quite possible that it may not have actually gone to Mr Blick. I may not have been happy with the arrangements and I may have dealt with things. Senator ROBERT RAY—I would have thought that when a note came through pointing out that the Prime Minister may have fairly gravely misled the parliament it would have surely rung a bell somewhere with officers of PM&C? Mr Bonsey—That is a different proposition to whether Mr Blick actually got the minute. We may very well have discussed this. Senator ROBERT RAY—I am starting to believe that Mr Blick did not see any of this because I think he would remember an accusation of the PM greatly misleading the parliament. Senator Hill—Do you recall a minute which suggested that the Prime Minister misled the parliament? Mr Blick—I do not recall a minute along those lines at all, no. Senator FAULKNER—Mr Bonsey, the minute that you recall does actually indicate that if the aide-memoire conforms with Senator Evans’s recollection that ‘it may be that statements made by the Prime Minister and Treasurer in parliament would be inconsistent with it’. Attached are relevant extracts from the Hansard. That is an important issue in that circumstance obviously when the Prime Minister and Treasurer may have misled. What did you do about that? Mr Bonsey—We would obviously take that into account in framing our advice to the Prime Minister on how to respond to Mr Evans’s request. Senator FAULKNER—Was there actually a formal advice that went to the Prime Minister following your sighting of this particular minute? Senator Hill—Advices between the Prime Minister and his officers or the contents thereof are normally not the province of— Senator FAULKNER—With respect, Minister, obviously you did not hear the question I asked. I asked whether there was a formal minute. I did not ask anything about its contents. I only asked if there was an advice to the Prime Minister. Senator Hill—About what? Senator FAULKNER—You obviously misheard my question. Senator Hill—Advice to the Prime Minister about what? Senator FAULKNER—I asked Mr Bonsey whether, following his sighting of the minute that he and I are canvassing, there was a formal advice to the Prime Minister in relation to issues that were raised in the minute. I am not asking about content, Mr Bonsey. Mr Bonsey—The terms of a draft reply, as I think we already said, were provided to the Prime Minister’s office on, I think, 29 October. I am almost certain that there would have been a covering note drawing aspects to his attention. Senator ROBERT RAY—Prior to that was there any notification to the Prime Minister’s office of this? Mr Blick—Only to the extent that Mr Evans’s letter had been received and the Prime Minister’s office would have been aware that Mr Evans was interested in accessing documents. Senator ROBERT RAY—They did not express any concern to you that there may be a document that totally contradicted what the Prime Minister had claimed in the House of Representatives?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 286 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Blick—Certainly not to me. Mr Bonsey—No. Senator ROBERT RAY—They had no response to that until you gave them the next response letter on 29 October? Mr Blick—To the best of my recollection, there had been no communication from the Prime Minister’s office about that until we provided them with a draft reply. Senator ROBERT RAY—This communication you gave to the Prime Minister on 29 October, have you been able to establish when you sent it over to the Prime Minister? Mr Bonsey—On 29 October. Senator ROBERT RAY—When on the 29th? Mr Bonsey—No, I do not have any recollection of that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Parliament was sitting that day, was it not, Minister? Senator Hill—On 29 October? Mr Blick—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Was the Prime Minister back then? Mr Bonsey—He arrived back on the 30th. He was not here on the 29th. Senator ROBERT RAY—What day was the 29th? Mr Bonsey—It was a Wednesday. Senator ROBERT RAY—So he received the letter on the 29th, but he is back here on the 30th for parliament? Senator Hill—He was back here on the 30th. He did question time on the 30th. Senator ROBERT RAY—Did I miss Mr Howard coming into the House of Representatives on the 30th and complying with the code of ministerial conduct to correct the public record at the first opportunity? Senator Hill—The record stands for itself. Senator ROBERT RAY—So he receives the letter— Senator Hill—You can read the record as well as I can. Senator ROBERT RAY—Did the letter contain the aide- memoire? We are not going to the contents generally, but did you include the aide-memoire in the stuff you sent over? Mr Bonsey—The papers were provided to the Prime Minister’s office at the time. Senator ROBERT RAY—They go there on the 29th and he is back in the parliament on the 30th and he does not correct the record at all, Senator Hill. Mr Blick—He arrived back on the afternoon of the 30th, Senator. It would have been fairly unlikely, if I may say so, to have read material that was in his office. Senator Hill—Even apart from that, you are drawing assumptions. You can make them for your purposes, but I do not know how legitimate they are because I do not know all the material facts. You are drawing the assumption that, as a result of that, a record needed to be corrected. I do not know whether that is so. Senator ROBERT RAY—You have a situation, Senator Hill. It is not just a laugh-offable one, although sometimes they are.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 287

Senator Hill—Who is laughing? Senator ROBERT RAY—The Prime Minister basically says it is coming from people who engage in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. He goes on to justify that by saying that Mr Beazley and Mr Evans defied the advice of the head of the Attorney-General’s Department, the Chief Counsel, when in actual fact a document that mysteriously disappears somewhere in the system has Mr Brazil and Mr Sherman signing off agreeing with the Attorney-General’s course of action. The only possible justification for Mr Howard’s statement is a file note from Mr Roger Holdich, about which the Attorney at the time writes an aide-memoire and says is wrong, and Mr Brazil and Mr Sherman concur that Mr Holdich’s view is wrong. So you have a former Attorney-General being besmirched in the parliament when in actual fact, if this document had emerged as it should have properly emerged on about 11 April, their reputations would not have been damaged in the way in which they have been damaged. Senator Hill—There are two different issues. The first was what occurred in April and what was the knowledge base at that time. There seems to be considerable doubt about that. Senator ROBERT RAY—What doubt? Senator Hill—Doubt about what documents the Prime Minister had. Senator ROBERT RAY—There is not much doubt, I can tell you, about what documents his media adviser had. Senator Hill—You have said that several times, but anyway— Senator ROBERT RAY—You might check with him. Senator Hill—I could do that, too. But the point is that you have drawn conclusions in the statement you have just made on the basis that the Prime Minister had that document. Firstly, we do not know whether he did. Secondly, you have then gone to October and drawn conclusions. You have adopted the same conclusions but you have added a bit more material which you believe should have led the Prime Minister to a different conclusion and you have called for an explanation as to why he did not reach the conclusion that you believe he should have been drawn to. That can be pursued as well. Senator ROBERT RAY—Let me put this on the public record, Senator Hill— Senator Hill—If this is all so, I do not know why you did not ask the Prime Minister. Why didn’t you ask the Prime Minister? Why didn’t Mr Evans ask him? Senator ROBERT RAY—He may well. Senator Hill—But you are making assertions here that you would have had on the Thursday— Senator ROBERT RAY—You are not seriously suggesting we spend a question time on non-answers in the House of Representatives, are you, Senator Hill? You know the system better than that. Senator Hill—You seem to be making a serious case here. I cannot see why you did not take the opportunity to put it first-hand. That is all I am asking. Senator ROBERT RAY—The Prime Minister shot through for a long while and you assume our knowledge on this has been for a long while. It may only have been for a short while.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 288 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator Hill—No. You are asserting that the Prime Minister should have taken certain action on the day he got back from overseas, but you obviously did not think it was worthy of taking any action at that time. Senator ROBERT RAY—We may not have known about it at that time, Senator. Before you interrupted I was going to say that it is possible, just to balance it off, as Mr Blick has said, that this matter had not been drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister until the House of Representatives adjourned on the Thursday. I concede that is a possibility. It is possible that he had no knowledge of this missing aide- memoire until he read that correspondence subsequent to 30 October. That is all possible. It really raises the question of whether, having read it, and if it is inconsistent with his statements in the House of Representatives, he will correct the record and apologise. Senator Hill—That is something that, by putting it in those terms, obviously will be passed on to him. Senator ROBERT RAY—Mr Chairman, it might be advisable to adjourn this matter until after lunch. I do not think we will take a long while after lunch, but there are two lines of inquiry being pursued here that we would like to follow up with a few minutes. Senator Hill—The first issue is the officer’s knowledge of documents. What was the second one? Senator ROBERT RAY—The second one was less important. It was the timing of when the letter went over. The timing is not as crucial now because we know now it went on the Wednesday and not the Thursday. So it is just left up in the air as to whether the Prime Minister knew. You might take on notice—probably you would like to, actually—whether the Prime Minister had received and read that correspondence prior to the parliament adjourning at 6 p.m. on Thursday or whatever it is. I suspect that helps a bit, but not much. Senator Hill—Okay. Senator ROBERT RAY—We will come back to that after lunch for a few minutes to finish off, especially Mr Alex Lang’s knowledge via Mr Blick. That is the best way of expressing it. Senator Hill, I note that the Prime Minister in answer to a question from the member for Paterson on 13 May 1997 quoted the ALP National Secretary, Mr Gary Gray. I will read it very briefly to you, although the answer is not that relevant. He is quoting from a speech by Mr Gray. He said: As the logic of globalisation and competition . . . comes to determine whether Western Mining, or BHP, or General Motors or Penfolds Wine, put their money into South Australia, or Argentina or Indonesia ... That is the quote. Do you know what source the Prime Minister used to quote Mr Gary Gray, the National Secretary of the Labor Party? Senator Hill—No. Senator ROBERT RAY—I did not think you would. Are you aware that he is quoting from a speech Mr Gray wrote but never delivered. Senator Hill—Obviously not. Senator ROBERT RAY—You would not be aware that that speech in draft form was sent to me here at Parliament House? Senator Hill—Obviously not.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 289

Senator ROBERT RAY—But that it was sent to the wrong number, which was a phone number not a fax number, and was then transferred to a fax by a Liberal senator? Are you aware of that? Senator Hill—Am I aware? No, I do not know what you are talking about. Senator ROBERT RAY—When I found out about that I let Mr Gray know, so he never delivered the speech. I am just wondering how the Prime Minister is quoting from a speech that was never delivered. Senator Hill—I don’t know. Senator ROBERT RAY—Want to take it on notice and find out? Senator Hill—I think we ought to try and find out because perhaps he gave two speeches. Senator ROBERT RAY—No. Senator FAULKNER—Oh Robert, please! Please! Senator Hill—Otherwise perhaps it should have been referred to as an intended speech. Senator FAULKNER—He can do better than that, really. Senator ROBERT RAY—I do not have a gripe about the prime— Senator Hill—Some of us believe repetition helps reinforce a point. Senator ROBERT RAY—If someone is stupid and sends a speech to a wrong fax number, that is their problem. Although normally, as a courtesy, I must say, senators, having taken a photocopy and put it in their back drawer, actually pass on the fax to the senator concerned, but Senator Ferris obviously does not follow the normal procedures. I take it that you might also inquire whether it was Senator Ferris who took Mr Gray’s speech around to the Prime Minister’s office as an exclusive. You might like to ask the Prime Minister where he got the copy of the speech. Senator Hill—I will in an informal way. Senator ROBERT RAY—I just take it, in conclusion on this, that we are not going to get any more whinges from you, Senator Hill, about stolen faxes and stolen documents today, are we? Senator Hill—I think that you have really got to put that to the appropriate circumstance of the issue in question. I think that we have all received material by mistake that we have sent back without keeping a copy, Senator Ray. Senator ROBERT RAY—I must say that I have always passed them on. I admit: if they happen to blow off my desk into a photocopy machine first and I have got a copy—but some things I do not. I got Senator Boswell’s travel allowance claims all by mistake. Senator Hill—Yes. I used to get a bit— Senator ROBERT RAY—And it was too much to pay so I passed it on to the Senate department. So let us clarify what you are taking on notice: what the source of his material was and where he got a copy of it. I know I am going to have a long wait for an answer, but I would like to take it on notice anyway. Thank you. On a different subject now, has the Prime Minister recently, let us say in the last few months, approved a pay increase for ministerial staff? Senator Hill—A pay increase for ministerial staff? I do not know. Mr Blick—I do not recall it, but we can check.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 290 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator Hill—Do you mean for all ministerial—an upping of the schedule? Senator ROBERT RAY—Let me rephrase it. It may help Mr Blick a bit more. Have they all been reclassified to a higher salary level? Mr Blick—Again, I would need to check. A reclassification would, by and large, fall within the portfolio of finance and administration. Senator Hill—There are individuals that might be reclassified from time to time. Senator ROBERT RAY—No, I am talking about across the board. My memory, Mr Blick—test me, I could be wrong here—is that, in the division of responsibilities between DOFA now and PM&C, it still remained within the Prime Minister’s ambit— Mr Blick—Yes, you could be right. Senator ROBERT RAY—rather than DOFA. Mr Blick—The answer to your original question is that I do not recall there being any general reclassification in the last few months. Senator ROBERT RAY—Is there anyone else here who could help us? Mr Blick—I think Mr Bonsey would remember it, but he has left. Senator ROBERT RAY—Is that to assist us with our inquiries in another matter? Yes. Senator Hill—We should be able to find that answer pretty easily, I think. Senator ROBERT RAY—Why don’t we put that issue on notice. I would appreciate, on this fairly specific question, a response just before the parliament gets up, if you could. I know some questions we ask on notice require a fair bit of detail, but I do not think this one does. It is almost a yes/no answer. It has two parts: whether people’s classifications have changed, hence a pay rise, or whether there has been a pay rise. If it is ‘yes’ to either, you might take on notice whether that was also applied to opposition shadow ministerial staff as an ‘only if’, consequential on the other two being affirmative—one of the other two. Thank you. Minister, Mr Blick, or anyone else: was your attention drawn to comments by Mr Kennett on 6 November when he alleged that one of Mr Reith’s staff consistently listens to him on radio—he should get a pay rise in that case—and then sends the transcripts to Canberra? Has that been drawn to your attention? Senator Hill—No, not to me. Mr Blick—Not to mine. Senator ROBERT RAY—It is relevant really to the questions that we have asked before about the rationale for two media officers on six ministers’ staff spread through six different states. You recall that, don’t you? Senator Hill—I do. Senator ROBERT RAY—Mr Kennett sent Ian a cheerio, I assume on the Neil Mitchell show, and made the allegation that in fact this government was running a media monitoring outfit. Mr Kennett made that allegation on the Neil Mitchell show, is that right? Is it right that he made the allegation, or is it right that the government is running a media monitoring organisation? Senator Hill—We are not running a media monitoring operation of the type with which we are very familiar— Senator ROBERT RAY—You are not running an open one; you are running a secret one.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 291

Senator Hill—which is something that tracks the opposition around the country in an effort to find something that might embarrass them. I think we have said before that we monitor to the extent to keep ministers informed of matters that are relevant to their responsibilities, but that is an entirely different focus. Senator ROBERT RAY—But you also monitor issues, according to Senator Parer’s evidence, and send them on to the Prime Minister’s office, don’t you? Senator Hill—I guess that would be if it was something that was of concern to the Prime Minister, yes. I think that is not inconsistent with what I have just said. Senator ROBERT RAY—If you have come clean and said, ‘Look, we have actually appointed six extra media officers to monitor things, to feed back information,’ why your first explanation of this? Why the erroneous and misleading press releases by Senator Vanstone and others on the appointment of these people? Why didn’t you just come clean and say you are doing it? Are you so embarrassed at doing this because you criticised us for doing it openly? Senator Hill—How is my answer inconsistent with what has been previously said? There are press people who— Senator ROBERT RAY—You are now basically admitting that they are doing media monitoring. Senator Hill—If my press person came across something that was relevant to the Prime Minister’s responsibilities— Senator ROBERT RAY—Come off it! Senator Hill—then I would like to think he would let the Prime Minister’s office know. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, but putting six as state based representatives, usually to junior ministers, for specifically this purpose is a world of difference from your press officer doing his professional job. Senator Hill—I thought we spent some considerable time in the past on their work responsibilities. Senator ROBERT RAY—And all we got out of you was weasel words. What we got out of Senator Parer was the truth. Senator Hill—I am sorry about that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Can we get him back in for a while? Senator Hill—I do my best. Senator ROBERT RAY—It is not an insult to accuse you of using weasel words; it is almost a compliment. Nevertheless, this is becoming an expensive operation. It is just a question of whether this government is engaged in double standards—not misbehaviour. I think it is not wrong for a government to monitor what is happening out there. It is just the double standards of you ripping into us when we were in government and then doing it. But you did not even make an announcement you were doing it. You hid it. Senator Hill—No, what we criticised of your expenditure was that you used public money to track opposition spokesmen around the country. You tracked me wherever I went: Alice Springs, Darwin. Whatever I said was taped, recorded and sent down the line to aNiMaLS to the relevant government spokesman so that they could attack me. We made a decision not to set up such an operation.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 292 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—But what you did was appoint six media officers, spread across junior ministers mostly, apart from Mr Reith, across six states. You made no announcement, just hid it in the figures. And the Prime Minister did it. You did not do it. The Prime Minister consciously did it in his staff approvals, didn’t he? Senator Hill—No, I do not agree with what you have said. What I have conceded is that there are persons who have a responsibility to assist with press matters in the states. But we have been through that before, how they can assist ministers with visits and all that sort of orthodox work. Our criticism of you was what we regarded as an unorthodox function. Senator ROBERT RAY—I see. So, Minister, you are quite willing to give us a guarantee that on no occasion any one of these six media officers has recorded and transcribed opposition spokesmen on issues. Senator Hill—Obviously I would not give you that guarantee, but what I can guarantee you is that their function is a very different function from that which you gave to aNiMaLS. The purpose of aNiMaLS was basically to seek to embarrass the opposition; it was not to facilitate ministers in their ministerial responsibility at all. That is the distinction that we have made and which I think is a very legitimate distinction. Senator ROBERT RAY—That is your view of that. I am not going to argue it one way or the other. I am asking whether you are behaving in the same way. You do not even know, apparently, whether any of these second media officers dotted through the Commonwealth buildings in each state are actually monitoring only ministerial issues. Senator Hill—No, that is not the question you asked me. You asked me whether I could guarantee that there had never been a transcript taken. That is obviously an unfair question to ask me. What I can tell you is what the responsibility and function are and how those differ from what we believe were the responsibility and function of aNiMaLS under the previous administration. Senator ROBERT RAY—What you are looking at is what they have been targeted to do, what they are being scoped to do. What we want to know is what they are actually doing. We suspect they are doing exactly the same as the previous organisation. Senator Hill—I do not believe that is so. Senator ROBERT RAY—Mr Kennett does. Senator Hill—That is taking it another step even further, isn’t it, if you are suggesting that they have been scoped to track third parties. Senator ROBERT RAY—What auditing is done or what checks are made to make sure that this network of six separate media officers to junior ministers across six separate states is in fact meeting the requirements that you have laid down for them? Senator Hill—As I understand it, they are accountable to the minister to whom they are attached. It would be whatever standards that minister applies to other staff. Senator ROBERT RAY—And you are aware that some of them have had fairly close contact with the Government Members Secretariat? Senator Hill—I would not be at all surprised. I really do not know what the extent of their contact is with the Government Members Secretariat. I am not even sure who is in the Government Members Secretariat. Senator ROBERT RAY—You do not know why they would have contact?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 293

Senator Hill—No. I said that I do not know the extent to which they might have contact with the Government Members’ Secretariat. Senator ROBERT RAY—Was it in their terms of reference to liaise with that body? Senator Hill—I do not know what their terms of reference are. I do not know the terms of reference beyond those which I have put to you. I do not think there are terms of reference beyond those I have put to you and their overall function. Senator ROBERT RAY—What will happen to any one of these six appointees if it is discovered that they were regularly monitoring opposition spokesmen and sending transcripts back to either the Prime Minister’s office, the Government Members’ Secretariat or even their own relevant minister? Senator Hill—What would happen would depend on what action the minister responsible for the staff member takes or, in the ultimate, what action the Prime Minister would take. If they were acting in a way that was inconsistent with their role, I guess that a range of actions might be taken. Senator ROBERT RAY—On the off-chance that Ian is watching us, I will just send him a cheerio now and move on. Senator FAULKNER—Is it true that the Prime Minister approached Treasury with the aim of having the next Treasury building named after former Prime Minister Sir William McMahon? Senator Hill—You can ask. Do you know? Mr Blick—I cannot give you a precise answer to that. There have been discussions involving the Prime Minister about the possibility of a building being named after Sir William McMahon. To the best of my recollection, that has been resolved by the decision to name a building in Sydney. I may be wrong about it even being a building; it may be a place in Sydney rather than a building. Senator FAULKNER—Is that because Treasury objected to having their building named after Sir William McMahon, even though the Prime Minister thought that it was a good idea? Mr Blick—As I said, I cannot recall there being contact with Treasury. It is quite possible that in the course of looking at that issue contact was made with people responsible for a number of possible buildings around Canberra. Senator FAULKNER—Who did the Prime Minister meet with in relation to these discussions? Mr Blick—I do not believe that there were meetings between the Prime Minister and anyone about it, although there may have been. Senator FAULKNER—How has the Prime Minister communicated this view to people that he wants to see a building named after Sir William McMahon? Mr Blick—I really need to take that question on notice. This started quite a long time ago. My recollection is that it was not the Prime Minister who initiated the issue but that the issue was brought to the Prime Minister’s attention and he indicated that he supported the idea. I do not believe, unless there have been discussions of which I am unaware, that he had personal discussions with people about it, other than presumably within his office. Senator FAULKNER—But he has written correspondence about it. Mr Blick—There has been correspondence about it, yes.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 294 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator FAULKNER—Could you tell us to whom that correspondence was directed? Mr Blick—I can try to recall, but it might be better if I become a bit more authoritative about it by making some inquiries about it. Senator FAULKNER—I appreciate your being authoritative. Are you able to recall? Mr Blick—I believe that there may have been correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Administrative Services at the time. There may also have been correspondence or discussions between our department and agencies such as the Historic Memorials Committee. I would be misleading you if I said that I could be very detailed about it. Senator FAULKNER—Are you aware of the fact that, as a key element in the contract negotiations for their new accommodation, Treasury has demanded that they have naming rights? Mr Blick—I am not aware of that, Senator. Senator FAULKNER—Could you establish that that is the case. I think you will find that it is correct. Mr Blick—I would have thought, with respect, that you could ask Treasury about that. Senator ROBERT RAY—They are appearing in another committee at the moment. We cannot be in all places at once. Senator FAULKNER—As I understand it, because Sir William McMahon was obviously a former Treasurer, it seemed to take the Prime Minister’s fancy that a Treasury building be named after him. They have dumped the name of Sir William McMahon from the Treasury building onto Sydney Central in Pitt Street in Sydney. I think that is the case, is it not? Mr Blick—You are probably right. I do not remember the exact building. Senator FAULKNER—Does the Prime Minister regularly get involved in the naming of buildings? He is quite interested in it, isn’t he? Mr Blick—As to the first question, I am not aware of any other cases where he has become involved. It is possible that he has. Senator FAULKNER—You do not know of any other proposals that have emanated from the Prime Minister in relation to the naming of buildings? Mr Blick—I do not know that this one emanated from the Prime Minister either. I am certainly not aware of others. There may be others. Senator FAULKNER—He has certainly written some letters about this and put his full weight behind some buildings. He wanted the Treasury building, but Treasury would not have that. Poor old Sydney Central is now likely to be named after Sir William McMahon. Senator Hill would know whether this is correct: I had been informed that the Prime Minister was keen to keep the name of Sir William McMahon up in lights because he is basically the only Prime Minister that he believes he compares favourably with. I do not know whether that is true. Senator ROBERT RAY—That is cruel. Yes, let’s object, Senator Watson. It is an insult. Senator FAULKNER—But I had understood there had been quite a lot of correspondence about this particular issue. Senator Hill—Do you want to know whether the Prime Minister has proposed others? Senator WATSON—Mr Chairman, I object to this imputation.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 295

Senator FAULKNER—I am interested in getting to the bottom of it. Senator Hill—I think we are trying to fill in a few minutes before lunch. Senator WATSON—Mr Chairman, I think that imputation should be withdrawn. Senator ROBERT RAY—Oh no, it cannot be withdrawn. Senator FAULKNER—If there was any imputation, as you call it, against Sir William McMahon, I withdraw it. Senator Hill—It was a rather feeble attempt at humour. CHAIR—By prior agreement, we will adjourn now for lunch. The committee will resume at 2 p.m. Sitting suspended from 12.45 p.m. to 2.05 p.m. CHAIR—The committee is in order and we will resume. Are there any further general questions? Senator ROBERT RAY—We might return to the issue we were on for a considerable period of time before lunch. Senator Hill—We have been able to find out a little information. Senator ROBERT RAY—Thank you. Senator Hill—The officer Alex Lang apparently was shown the DAS file and gave advice on the DAS file, but it does not seem that he saw the A-G’s file—I do not know why. He wrote a short report after completing his task. I am happy to table the report dated 14 April for the benefit of the committee. CHAIR—Thank you, Minister. Senator Hill—The other issue was when did the Prime Minister get advice about the Evans letter. I understand that the letter was delivered to the Prime Minister’s office on the Thursday. Senator ROBERT RAY—Thursday now. Senator Hill—That is what I am told—on the Thursday. Mr Blick—It was dated the 29th but was delivered on the 30th. Senator ROBERT RAY—It was delivered on the Thursday, right. Senator Hill—And that the Prime Minister did not see it on the Thursday—Thursday was the day that he got back from overseas and he was not here all day. He attended cabinet and question time, and that was all. Senator ROBERT RAY—Good, thanks for that information. That does establish one thing. Under what circumstances was Mr Alex Lang asked to go to the PM’s office? Did they put a request to you to send someone over? Mr Blick—His recollection is that the PM’s office was very concerned to ensure that due process was observed in relation to these documents and that he was asked to advise in relation to their status for release to the Leader of the Opposition. Senator ROBERT RAY—Can we have an explanation as to why, having called him over, he was only asked to rule on Administrative Services’ documents and not A-G’s documents? Senator Hill—We do not have an explanation for that at the moment. It does seem, on the face of it, a bit odd that the Prime Minister’s office took the initiative of calling someone in

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 296 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997 to advise them—whether it was that they did not have the A-G’s file at that time, I can only suppose. I do not know yet. Senator ROBERT RAY—It does present a small problem for the PM’s office if someone deleted certain matters without advice. We at least now know that they went to the proper trouble of getting advice on the DAS ones. If they have deleted material from A-G’s without seeking proper advice, it does not place them in a terribly good position, does it, Minister? Senator Hill—I do not necessarily accept that. I do not know that they actually had to take advice at all. What is a bit puzzling is that they would decide of their own initiative to take advice but only on one file. That was why I was wondering whether they had the other file at that time. I am still seeking further information in that regard. Senator ROBERT RAY—Mr Blick, there was not any other request for you to come over to rule on the A-G’s file, was there? Mr Blick—No. That is correct, Senator. Senator ROBERT RAY—Therefore, if—and I stress ‘if’—something was deleted from the A-G’s file, it was not on the advice of officers of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Senator Hill—That would seem to follow. Senator ROBERT RAY—Therefore, if there was any attempt at justification by the PM’s office that matters were deleted, they cannot rely on advice from PM&C specifically. Senator Hill—Unless there is something else that we do not know. We knew of this particular officer’s involvement and it turns out that his involvement is limited to the DAS file. Senator ROBERT RAY—I think there is corroborating evidence for that, Senator Hill, because when this issue was raised probably with Mr Lang in October, there was no evidence that he had any recall of sighting these documents on 10 April or whenever. That corroborates that, I think, but it still does not deflect from the point that, if—and it is an ‘if’, but we will establish that within a day—these documents went to the Prime Minister’s office and were not passed on, it was not on the advice of PM&C. Senator Hill—There is still a touch of mystery and we are trying to demystify the position. Senator ROBERT RAY—Could you explain a little conundrum that has occurred to me. Mr Alex Lang is not senior enough to appear before Senate estimates committees, yet he is senior enough to go to the Prime Minister’s office and give him advice. I cannot quite work that out. Senator Hill—He is the FOI officer, I think. Mr Blick—He is a subject matter expert. Senator Hill—A junior officer expert in a particular subject area. Senator ROBERT RAY—So he is senior enough to go to the Prime Minister’s office, but he is not senior enough to come to this even more august body. Senator Hill—No, he went because of his speciality. Those who attend estimates committees in my experience traditionally are those who have to take responsibility for administrative decisions. They are the ones who have the privilege of being worked over in this forum. Senator ROBERT RAY—Obviously he is not going to get far in PM&C. I note that the great helmsman of PM&C Mr Moore-Wilton said in evidence to a Senate committee on 28

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 297

August, ‘Transparency is a clear part of accountability and it needs to be there.’ Are you aware of these great words of wisdom, Mr Blick? Mr Blick—I believe I was here at the time, Senator. Senator ROBERT RAY—Were you? So they do not apply to Mr Lang? In relation to that, who is Mr Moss? Mr Blick—He is the Assistant Secretary in charge of the legal branch. Senator ROBERT RAY—Is he senior enough to appear before the feared estimates committees? Mr Blick—He would be senior enough, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—We understand he was also the subject of the same note that Mr Bonsey read. Mr Blick—That is correct. Senator ROBERT RAY—Do you think he could assist us with any of our inquiries or not? Mr Blick—I do not think he has any information that you have not already got, Senator. Senator ROBERT RAY—Thank you for the information about when the Prime Minister received the document. I take it we cannot see that document of 30 October. You would rule that out? Senator Hill—I am not sure about that. Did you ask for that? Senator ROBERT RAY—I just did, but I am happy to accept your ruling either way. Senator Hill—You have to bear in mind that it is a note from officers of PM&C to the Prime Minister. I would not want to put it on the record without the Prime Minister’s agreement. Senator ROBERT RAY—Sure. Senator FAULKNER—Just going back to Mr Lang’s attendance at the Prime Minister’s office. I hear that you said to us that he was effectively summoned. Was Mr Lang specifically asked for or was the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet asked to send the appropriate officer in this circumstance to a meeting? I ask that just so we can understand that completely. Mr Blick—It is not possible to answer that question with precision in the absence of any indication on Mr Lang’s contemporaneous note, but one would have expected that in the ordinary course the PM’s office would say, ‘Could you send someone up to look at these papers who knows about these issues?’ We would have chosen Mr Lang rather than they would have specifically nominated him. Senator FAULKNER—Was this a prearranged request for an officer of PM&C to attend the Prime Minister’s office or was this rather more hasty? Obviously discussions going on in the PM are— Mr Blick—Again, I can only speculate, but I presume that what happened was that the file arrived in the Prime Minister’s office. People then examined the file and realised that there needed to be some attention given to the appropriate categories into which the documents would fall and then made the request. I honestly cannot tell you whether that is absolutely— Senator FAULKNER—Mr Blick, would it be possible, instead of speculating on those two matters, to provide us with some urgent advice on that?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 298 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Blick—It really is not within our current knowledge, Senator. Senator FAULKNER—Mr Lang would know, wouldn’t he? Mr Blick—He could not recall. Senator FAULKNER—Could Mr Lang possibly recall who was present at the meeting in the Prime Minister’s office? Senator Hill—I could seek that information for you. Senator ROBERT RAY—Could you tell us where Mr Stephen Brady and Mr Nicholas Hossack come into this? Senator Hill—They are staff of the Prime Minister. Senator ROBERT RAY—Just going from the 14 April note, presumably Mr Lang attended on them when they were going through the material. Mr Blick—That is a reasonable assumption, Senator, yes. Senator FAULKNER—So, as a matter of urgency, would you be able to establish from Mr Lang who was present? That seems to me to be something that is just a matter of record, isn’t it? Mr Blick—Yes, we can find that out, Senator. Senator FAULKNER—So if you could let us know— Senator Hill—It is a bit odd to require to know which of the staff of the Prime Minister that the officer might have— Senator ROBERT RAY—Can we help you out there then? If Mr Lang goes across and deals with two staff members who are dealing with the DAS side, we are at least entitled to presume that they may have been the same two staffers who dealt with the A-G’s file when it came over. Senator Hill—Maybe. He says in this document that he returned material to Brady and Hossack. Obviously they had some conduct of the matter, but I will see if we can find out. Senator FAULKNER—Mr Bonsey, were you aware that there was an aide-memoire— another one, a different one—on 14 September 1983 under the signature of Mr Brazil, Secretary to the Attorney-General’s Department, that had not been provided to either former Senator Evans or Mr Beazley? This is not the aide-memoire to which Mr Sherman was a joint signatory. This is another one. This is the second aide-memoire about which Mr Beazley and Mr Evans were not apprised. Are you aware of that one? Mr Bonsey—I was aware of it when the file came over, I think, probably on 9 or 10 October or in the week commencing 20 October. Senator ROBERT RAY—We will not ask you whether you read this in Mr Ramsey’s column, because we could not find it. Mr Bonsey—To complete the points of the question, I have no knowledge whether or not that was provided to Mr Beazley in April. Senator FAULKNER—Again, I can assure you that it was not. When you say the file came over—just so we are absolutely clear on this—it came over from whom and when? Mr Bonsey—A copy of the Attorney-General’s Department file came over on 8 October. Senator FAULKNER—So the original of the file went where?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 299

Mr Bonsey—The original of the file, as I understand it, is held by the Attorney-General’s Department. Senator ROBERT RAY—So, in effect, you made your inquiry on 7 October and you got a response by 8 October? Mr Bonsey—In response to the minute of 7 October from Mr Lang, I said that we cannot handle this without knowing what documents we are talking about; can we please approach A-G’s for a copy of the file? Senator ROBERT RAY—So you approached A-Gs for a copy of the file on 7 October and they responded by 8 October? Mr Bonsey—I asked somebody to get it. Mr Blick—We think we actually approached them on the 8th. Senator ROBERT RAY—Let us not fence: what was the turnaround time from your request to receiving the file? Mr Blick—It seems we received it on the same day. Senator ROBERT RAY—I think I am pretty right in assuming that they did not go all the way back to archives, that they had a copy either in the department or in the minister’s office. There is nothing wrong with that, by the way. Senator Hill—Sorry? Senator ROBERT RAY—I am assuming, if the turnaround time was so quick, that they had a copy in the department or in the minister’s office, that they did not go back to archives. Senator Hill—I do not know. Mr Blick—That is probably the case because they would have generated papers subsequent to the original request from the Prime Minister to Mr Beazley that probably would have gone on the same file. So they probably would have regarded it as a current file. Senator ROBERT RAY—What I am trying to finalise is that we are pretty certain A-G’s had copies of this material from their previous searches in April and had them on file. You cannot certify that, but it is most likely. Senator Hill—That is most likely. There is still some doubt in my mind as to what was sent over in the first instance, but I presume that will be further clarified as this matter progresses. Senator FAULKNER—It is true, is it not, that this second aide-memoire— Senator ROBERT RAY—It is really the first one. Senator FAULKNER—Sorry, the second one we are addressing but the first one in terms of the dates, 14 September—this also very baldly, very clearly, debunks aspects of Mr Holdich’s notes. Paragraph 2 of this aide-memoire, which has not seen the light of day until this estimates hearing, says: The account of the Attorney-General’s views in paragraph 4 of Mr Holdich’s note is inaccurate. That is a very bald statement, is it not? Senator Hill—Is that a question? Senator FAULKNER—Yes. Senator Hill—It is a bald statement, yes.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 300 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—The Prime Minister accused Mr Beazley and Mr Evans of being perverters of the course of justice in defying the advice of Mr Brazil and Mr Sherman. Does he have any evidentiary basis for that, other than the Holdich note? Senator Hill—Obviously, I do not know the answer to that. I am still not sure what material he had. Senator FAULKNER—Perhaps Mr Blick or Mr Bonsey you can explain this to us: when this was drawn to your attention, given what Mr Howard and Mr Costello had said in the parliament, didn’t this start to ring some alarm bells? Here is a very clear statement preceding the other jointly signed aide-memoire, a separate one from Mr Brazil, saying absolutely categorically that the account of the Attorney-General’s views in paragraph 4 of Mr Holdich’s note is inaccurate. Why didn’t something occur? Senator Hill—But when are you suggesting it should have occurred? Senator FAULKNER—After either Mr Blick or Mr Bonsey were appraised of this particular document. Senator Hill—In October? Senator FAULKNER—I have only heard from Mr Bonsey when he became aware of it. Senator ROBERT RAY—Can we clarify this situation so that we understand it, Senator Hill. Mr Blick can contradict me. When did the Prime Minister leave for CHOGM? Was he not in parliament for two days subsequent to both Mr Bonsey and Mr Blick having knowledge of what was in these documents on 8 October, or am I wrong? Senator Hill—Whilst that important question is being researched, it seems, after Mr Evans raised the matter, that the various processes did swing into action to seek to clarify the matters, and that is what ultimately led to the note to the Prime Minister from his department. Senator ROBERT RAY—We trust your word on that—we have not seen that note. I am now not going to the Prime Minister’s behaviour but trying to check what the standard operating procedure is in PM&C. I am sorry I do not have the dates fixed in my head, and I am sure you don’t, so we will do a bit of dancing around this. I thought there were something like two available days in parliament beyond 8 and 9 October in which you should have drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister that these two other documents existed—the first one we have been through exhaustively. Senator Hill—We do not think parliament was sitting on— Senator ROBERT RAY—Let us make it easy for you. Parliament finished sitting on Thursday, 2 October. It resumed on 20 October and my memory is that the Prime Minister was here for two days, for two question times. He could have been here for a third on the Wednesday and then shot through—I am not sure whether he had obligations in London—is that right? Senator Hill—He went pretty early in that week, I think. Senator ROBERT RAY—It could have been Tuesday. He was at question time on Tuesday. I remember he was at two question times. CHAIR—I think he left straight after that. Senator ROBERT RAY—He was in the parliament on 20 and 21 October. Are you saying that no-one from PM&C drew his attention to statements he had made 20 and 19 days before when you had documents around 9 October, to be generous—the first and the second aide-

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 301 memoire—the first one signed by Brazil on 14 September and the second one by Brazil and Sherman on 18 September? No-one drew it to his attention? Senator Hill—Not that I know of. Certainly notes at the table would suggest that action was taken on 29 October. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, but we know that on 7 October at least one member was concerned that the Prime Minister had inadvertently or advertently—let us lean to the innocent explanation—misled the House. Senator Hill—Again, you are drawing certain conclusions on the basis of a file that I have not read. I do not know the balance of the material on that file. You have come to the conclusion that when that file is read, including the two documents to which you have referred today, the statement that is made could be interpreted as being misleading. I do not know whether that is a fair assumption or not. Senator ROBERT RAY—What I am saying to you, Senator Hill, is that on 7 October a junior officer—you have described the officer as a junior officer—came to the conclusion that the Prime Minister may have misled the parliament. By 8 or 9 October the documents had come over from A-G’s to PM&C; not the PM’s office—to PM&C. Senator Hill—I do not know that the junior officer actually went as far as that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Two aide-memoires came over, the first of which refutes the Holdich assertion, the second of which endorses the Attorney-General’s action at the time by the two most senior law officers, yet nothing is done to inform the Prime Minister when he has to go into parliament on 20 and 21 October before he goes overseas that he may have inadvertently, to be on the kind side, misled parliament. Senator Hill—I think it is fair to say that officers certainly were of the view that that matter should be further explored; there was material that required examination. It then seems that that examination took the next few weeks and resulted in the note to the Prime Minister of 29 October. Senator FAULKNER—Can you explain to us, Mr Blick, when Mr Moore-Wilton became apprised of this situation and what he did? Mr Blick—Which situation are you referring to? Senator FAULKNER—These matters that we have been canvassing for some hours. Mr Blick—It is very difficult to say without knowing what conversations he may have been involved in—I am not aware of them—but he certainly would have got a drop copy of our note to the Prime Minister of 29 October. I have no recollection of any other communication with him about the matter. Senator FAULKNER—So you did not have any informal discussions with him, so to speak? Mr Blick—I do not recall having any discussions with him about it at all. Senator FAULKNER—Is Mr Bonsey going to join us in a moment? Mr Blick—I expect so, yes. Senator Hill—I do not know what happened to Mr Bonsey. Mr Blick—He went to check the CHOGM dates. Senator Hill—He has gone to check the dates.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 302 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—And we have got them in the meantime. I will ask you a summary question, Senator Hill. If, indeed, A-G’s forwarded the two aide-memoires to the Prime Minister’s office somewhere around 10 April, if they were not passed on to Mr Beazley and thence to Mr Evans—and they were the only two crucial documents that in fact would refute the charges that both those individuals had perverted the course of justice—if they were deliberately withheld and disappeared, isn’t there another suspect somewhere around in the PM’s office as a perverter of the course of justice? Senator Hill—That is painting the blackest picture. As I said, I have obviously not reviewed all the relevant papers. As it stands at the moment we do not even have evidence before us that the Prime Minister’s office received what you regard as the relevant documents. How the assessment was then made of the case developed from the file as a whole I do not know, because I did not develop that. Senator ROBERT RAY—If it transpired that the Prime Minister’s office was not given these relevant documents by the Attorney-General’s Department there is a pretty strong case against them for failing to pass them on, having dug them out, isn’t there? Senator Hill—I do not know why they would not. We simply do not have evidence that would provide us with those answers at this time. Senator ROBERT RAY—I have a fairly brief question. Given that two of the four permanent members of the ministerial council on government information and advertising have resigned their previous role—Mr Jull and Mr Morris—who has the Prime Minister appointed to replace them? Senator Hill—I am told that this department may only learn of this incidentally. I guess they could be asked for advice, but basically the office is within Finance and the appointment is made by the Prime Minister. The bottom line is that these officers do not know, so we could either make inquiries through PM&C or at the appropriate time ask the question of Finance. Senator ROBERT RAY—Well, we can ask the question of Finance, but the Prime Minister is responsible for the appointments. Senator Hill—That’s true. Senator ROBERT RAY—He put the good old boys on 18 months ago to look after their mates. I am just wondering who the next two cabs off the rank are, and you should be able to find that out from the Prime Minister. Senator Hill—Can we see if your department has that information, Mr Blick? Mr Blick—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—I am absolutely and categorically certain that the department are not consulted on this decision. That I am certain of. I thought they may have found out. Senator Hill—It may be that the vacancies have not yet been filled. I don’t know. Senator ROBERT RAY—It might be regarded as the death seat—you go in there and you don’t last long. Senator Hill—Two out of four. Senator FAULKNER—Can you inform us whether it is the case that the Prime Minister’s driver threatened to resign over pay negotiations? Senator Hill—Threatened to resign to whom?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 303

Senator FAULKNER—Threatened to resign his position as Prime Minister’s driver—and made that very clear to the Prime Minister. Senator Hill—The Prime Minister’s driver is employed by DAS. We could certainly find out from DAS whether they were given any formal advice in relation to an intended resignation. Senator FAULKNER—You are not aware of this issue yourself, Senator Hill? Senator Hill—I have some personal knowledge of the matter, simply because I was travelling in the car one day and the Prime Minister’s driver talked to me about his future. Senator ROBERT RAY—I do not think we want to pursue that. Senator FAULKNER—No, we are not interested in that. Senator Hill—If that has been related to you— Senator FAULKNER—No, not at all. Senator Hill—I would be very disturbed. Senator ROBERT RAY—No, it has not, and we were not— Senator FAULKNER—But let’s be clear. I thought you might have some knowledge—in fact, I thought nearly every cabinet minister might have had some knowledge about it, because is it not true that the cabinet meeting of 15 September was put on hold while this issue was resolved? Senator Hill—Obviously, I do not discuss matters from within cabinet—but a meeting was put on hold? Senator FAULKNER—Can someone inform us first of all whether the commencement of the cabinet meeting of 15 September was delayed? Senator ROBERT RAY—For this issue of Commonwealth cars? Senator FAULKNER—Delayed, first of all, and then why. Senator Hill—In this instance I will have to say, ‘Not that I can recall.’ Senator FAULKNER—Can you help us there, Mr Blick? Mr Blick—I cannot, Senator. Senator Hill—It sounds very odd, I have to say. Senator ROBERT RAY—For something like an hour, Senator Hill, does it not ring a bell that all these important agenda items are there and suddenly, ‘Hold on, we are going to discuss Comcars and ministers et cetera’? Senator Hill—No. What do you mean by ‘put on hold’? That the meeting was postponed for an hour? Senator ROBERT RAY—No, you went on to this issue while all the other important ones were put off. Senator Hill—Certainly, there have been discussions from time to time on the issues of Comcar. They are issues that are sensitive to all parliamentarians, as we all know. Senator FAULKNER—In fact, it is true that cabinet on 15 September dealt with the issue of Comcar services, isn’t it, Senator Hill or Mr Blick? Senator Hill—I do not know if it was on that day. Even if I did know, I do not think I would be—

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 304 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator FAULKNER—I am starting to get worried that I know more about the cabinet than you do, Senator Hill. Senator Hill—But sometimes you get it wrong, Senator, you see. Senator FAULKNER—Rarely, it appears. Senator Hill—Often, I would suggest. Senator FAULKNER—Can you tell us if there is a cabinet decision— Senator ROBERT RAY—Apart from process, you see, a decision. Senator Hill—Yes, I’ve got it. Senator FAULKNER—that a report be provided on a number of matters related to the provision of Comcar services that allowed ministers in their home states either a dedicated Comcar driver or a driver selected on the basis of availability from a small pool of Comcar drivers, a report on the extended hours of operation of Comcar availability for ministers beyond current hours of operation and also that encouraged the use of private sector transport service providers within a system of clearly defined contracts requiring high quality service? As I understand it—but I would like to hear your confirmation—there was a cabinet decision to that effect. Senator Hill—From time to time, advice has been taken and papers have been prepared on Comcar issues. Whilst they do not take a disproportionate time of Cabinet, they have certainly been raised from time to time and they are basically ongoing. I am not sure—I was going to say—a final set of decisions has been made but— Senator FAULKNER—That went to the provision of a report, Senator Hill. Senator Hill—I know that there are some further decisions that are imminent. I would think that as soon as they are settled they would be appropriately announced. Senator FAULKNER—Is it true that you have actually received a report from Minister Minchin that recommends that ministers in their home state be allowed to select a pool of three preferred Comcar drivers who, on the basis of their availability, will provide transport services to the minister at an additional cost of three-quarters of a million dollars for a full year? Is it the case that there is a recommendation that the extension of Comcar’s hours of operation to a 24-hour and seven-days-a-week basis to meet ministers requirements—and only ministers requirements—at an additional cost of $450,000 a year and that there is a range of other proposals to further enhance the level and quality of hire-car contractor services? Senator Hill—I know that Senator Minchin took over this process, which was not surprising when it became his responsibility. As I said to you a moment ago, I do not believe that these matters have been finally resolved. But I am sure that when they are an announcement would be made. Senator FAULKNER—Is it not true that what is happening here is that the fix is effectively going in for ministers in relation to Comcars. Frankly, this appears in a number of examples of the way this government is doing business. Quite clearly, cabinet has made a decision in relation to receiving a report on a range of issues and a number of recommendations either agreed to or before cabinet in relation to ministers themselves getting this special, select, private side deal. That is the truth of the matter, isn’t it? Senator Hill—No. The truth of the matter is that when these services were constrained it affected some more than others. As I recall it, for example, a dedicated driver to the Leader

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 305 of the Opposition continued. The subsequent issue was whether the level of constraint should be revised. Senator FAULKNER—This does not go to the Leader of the Opposition; this goes to ministers. Senator Hill—Why don’t you let me answer the question? Senator FAULKNER—Sure, but don’t bring in red herrings. That has nothing to do with what we are asking. Senator Hill—The issue was then whether the constraint, which had been taken for good reason—that is, basically to save money because we had to meet a huge domestic deficit—had been to an extent that it was detrimentally affecting the ministerial work responsibilities. That issue was to be given further consideration. Senator Minchin took over that task. As I said to you, whilst progress has been made on it, I do not think it has been finally resolved. Senator ROBERT RAY—Correct me if I am wrong. I thought when you came into government on your great white steed you beat your chest about getting rid of dedicated drivers to ministers, didn’t you? Senator Hill—I do not know about that. I did not think we did because I was not aware that it was disappearing. I do not think there was any chest beating in that regard. Senator ROBERT RAY—Not by you, but a couple of your colleagues drew it to our attention. Senator Hill—I think there was always a concern that dedicated drivers might, in effect, contribute to an inefficiency within the pool and that was a subject that was well worthy of consideration. I would not want to go back through history but certainly dedicated drivers in Canberra, according to the rumour mill anyway, were basically an inefficiency in the sense that the car resources were not being fully utilised because of the priority that was given to ministers through dedicated drivers. I have never done that assessment, but that certainly was the commonly held view around here. Senator ROBERT RAY—Wasn’t there a preconception that turned out to be absolutely wrong that dedicated drivers meant they were dedicated to the minister not just dedicated to the driver and going straight back into the pool thereafter. Wasn’t there some misunderstanding? I know that my successor accused me of having an extra staff member because I had a dedicated driver in Melbourne who worked for me for one hour each day and then went back into the pool. Senator Hill—That was my experience in Adelaide. I have had the opportunity to have a dedicated driver in Adelaide and Canberra. I did not choose to have one in Canberra because of the fact that there was a revolving pool, and I did not think it was necessary. I chose to have one in Adelaide but, if you really want to know why, it was that your government was retrenching drivers. I thought if we could take another one into a dedicated role it would probably save another job. Senator ROBERT RAY—Congratulations on your humanity. It has not extended to your government, which is currently retrenching people. Senator Hill—Then it went anyway. Senator FAULKNER—It does not seem to apply to 30,000 public servants. Senator ROBERT RAY—You are good in the micro, Senator.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 306 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator Hill—Even in Adelaide I thought it was a bit odd when I seem to be there so rarely, but what you say is true. The driver basically works in the pool, excepts when he was working for me. Senator FAULKNER—The issue here I would have thought, Senator Hill, is about the hypocrisy and the secrecy. That is what it is about—what you say publicly while the stitch-up goes on for the ministers. It might be absolutely justified. It might be quite an appropriate way to do business. The truth of the matter is that you cannot have it both ways, Senator Hill. Senator Hill—I think you have to wait until decisions are made. When decisions are made and announced then you the can draw whatever political conclusion you like. That is your job. Senator ROBERT RAY—The conclusion we draw is not that you want to have dedicated drivers or you want to have unrestricted hours, which does not apply to any other entitlee; there may be a case for enhanced provisions for ministers. They are more important than others. I can see that. Senator Hill—It is not a question of being more important. Senator ROBERT RAY—More vital or whatever. To interrupt the cabinet meeting to resolve this because the Prime Minister’s driver decides he wants to spit the dummy and to discuss this when you have all these other agenda items seems very self-indulgent to me. Senator Hill—It is not worth me going into it. You draw a range of assumptions upon which to base your political conclusion. The question of Comcar, although it has come up from time to time, would have on a percentage basis taken up a minimal period of cabinet in the last 18 months. Senator ROBERT RAY—I would like to go on to some process issues—I stress not the substance issues—of the Sharp resignation. I do not want to go into the details of why he left. Some of the processes that occurred at the time still are not particularly clear to me. One of the issues that came up is that Mr Sutherland, who worked for Mr Jull, says he informed Mr Grahame Morris and Ms Fiona McKenna of certain repayments. Did either Ms McKenna or Mr Morris communicate any of that to Prime Minister and Cabinet either in writing or orally prior to 23 September 1997? Mr Blick—To the department? Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. Mr Blick—No. Senator ROBERT RAY—Were there communications between then DAS and PM&C on these types of matters prior to Tuesday, 23 September other than the conversation between Ms Hughes and Ms Bisshop? Mr Blick—We do not believe so. We have tried to track down any records of such conversations and asked people for their recollections and there are none. Senator ROBERT RAY—Did you ask DAS whether they had any file notes from the Prime Minister’s department on this matter? Mr Blick—At the time these issues were current I had a conversation or two with senior people in DAS. I have to tell you that I cannot recall much about the conversation except that at the time the two people most likely to have had conversations of that kind with people in our department were overseas and could not be located. Subsequently, I saw records of

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 307 conversations between senior people in DAS and those people overseas. I do not recall ever getting any further information beyond what was in those records of conversation. Senator ROBERT RAY—I take it that you did a search for file notes, email records and other communication on the subject? Mr Blick—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Just to clarify that, DAS has never told you that they had file notes from PM&C or, more particularly, from the Prime Minister’s office on this? Mr Blick—They have not told us that. As I say, I saw a couple of records of conversation which did not indicate that there were any such communications. Senator ROBERT RAY—Really. Can I ask you about the resignation of Philomena Bisshop. When did Ms Bisshop forward her resignation to Ms Barbara Belcher or you? Mr Blick—She prepared the resignation during the weekend after the Morris resignation. The first time I saw it physically was on the Monday morning. Ms Belcher saw it over the weekend. Off hand I cannot recall whether it was on the Saturday or Sunday, but it was certainly during the weekend. The reason I know that is she rang me to tell me about it. Senator ROBERT RAY—What do you do in those circumstances? Do you give the officer advice? Mr Blick—We had had extensive conversations with her on the Friday when she indicated that she might be inclined to resign. Senator ROBERT RAY—We had better go back to that period rather than the formal letter of resignation. So she had conversations with Ms Belcher and you either together or separately? Mr Blick—I had conversations with Ms Belcher and Ms Bisshop on the Friday afternoon. Senator ROBERT RAY—Did you try to deter Ms Bisshop from resigning? Mr Blick—I tried strenuously to deter her from resigning. Indeed, on the Friday afternoon I thought she had accepted that advice. Senator ROBERT RAY—I have re-read several times the transcript that the Prime Minister tabled. For the life of me, I cannot find one scintilla of evidence as to why Ms Bisshop should resign. I cannot find one act of impropriety or even stupidity in any action she took other than a bit of brilliant intuitive thinking, albeit temporarily, on that subject. So you do not think it is a hanging offence? I put you on the spot there. From your point of view as a manager of a program, her actions would never have compelled you to go round and suggest that she resign? Mr Blick—Certainly not. That is not to say, however, that one would not have contemplated whether a person in her position should not be subject to some form of inquiry to ascertain whether there were any kind of, what one in a pejorative sense might call, disciplinary offence under the Public Service Act. Senator ROBERT RAY—If Ms Bisshop had not gone and notated a contemporaneous account of that you never would have known about that? Mr Blick—That is correct.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 308 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—Ms Hughes was overseas. I interrupted you. You were saying that on the Friday your advice to her was that a resignation was not necessary. Mr Blick—That is correct. Senator ROBERT RAY—And Ms Belcher gave her the same advice. Mr Blick—Very strenuously, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Nevertheless she resigned. Mr Blick—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Minister, a newspaper article dated 1 November 1997 entitled ‘The axeman cometh’ states: When it emerged that a middle-ranking bureaucrat in Moore-Wilton’s department had known details of former minister John Sharp’s travel allowance repayment, a livered Moore-Wilton made an appearance in the official’s branch. The official took the extraordinary step of resigning over the matter. Moore- Wilton’s reaction to the branch’s distress was to counsel that grieving was one thing and sympathy another. Minister, was Mr Max Moore-Wilton crucial in accepting Ms Bisshop’s resignation? Senator Hill—I know of no involvement of Mr Max Moore-Wilton. Mr Blick—Mr Moore-Wilton accepted Ms Bisshop’s resignation with regret. In fact, he annotated in the resignation that he was accepting it with deep regret and that he would wish to provide her with a reference recording her service to the department. Senator ROBERT RAY—So he certainly did not go around and appear in her office in a menacing way at some stage? Mr Blick—He did not have any discussions with her at all. Senator ROBERT RAY—At all? Mr Blick—He chose to avoid doing so for reasons of, as he saw it, propriety. Senator ROBERT RAY—In any event, it is basically your job and those further down the line to deal with these matters. So his role was simply in accepting it. He would not have seen his role as necessarily doing other than being the first recipient at this stage of the resignation. While we are on the subject of resignations, Minister, would you like to tell me why the Prime Minister on 26 September informed the world through a press conference—I think it was 1 p.m. here; it may have been a touch later—that he had terminated the services of Mr Morris and Ms McKenna and admitted the fact that, the day before, both had forwarded him letters of resignation? Senator Hill—Because, in a technical sense, that is what the Prime Minister had done. Senator ROBERT RAY—We know he terminated them. That is the technical sense. We know he terminated them, but he did give a very extensive— Senator Hill—But in a formal sense I do not think he accepted the resignations. He had terminated them. Senator ROBERT RAY—Why not? Why didn’t he accept their resignations as offered? Senator Hill—I do not know that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Did he want to look a bit more Arnold Schwarzenegger-like by terminating them or what? Senator Hill—No. I could think of a possible reason or two.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 309

Senator ROBERT RAY—Can you share those with us? Senator Hill—No, because that would only be my guesswork. Senator ROBERT RAY—But you do concede that, when Mr Howard tabled in the parliament, I think, on Tuesday—it could have been the Monday—30 September correspond- ence at question time, he included in that bundle the two resignation letters from Ms McKenna and Mr Morris? Senator Hill—I do not have those papers in front of me now, but I did glance at them when we tabled them in the Senate. Senator ROBERT RAY—They were tabled in the House of Representatives. You were a bit vague about it because you were not sure of the timing in the Senate. I just thought I would remind you. Senator Hill—Did we table them in the end in the Senate? Anyway, I got them during that question time. Senator ROBERT RAY—But the point is that they were tabled in the House of Representatives. That is how we found out about the resignation. The Prime Minister did not bother to inform us about that. Let us ask the dollar question: what differences in entitlement did Ms McKenna and Mr Morris receive? What was the difference in money terms through them being terminated—that is, sacked—or through them resigning? There is a substantial difference, isn’t there, Mr Blick, in payment? Senator Hill—It is true that, under the MOPS Act, if services are terminated, they are entitled to a termination payment. We could get that for you. I am told it is a DAS matter, but I would not think it would be beyond the wit of PM&C to make an inquiry. Senator FAULKNER—But they are actually staff of the Prime Minister. Mr Blick—That is true, but it is the Department of Finance and Administration that calculates the payouts. Senator FAULKNER—I appreciate that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Let me get this right. We have three resignations at this period. There is the resignation of a faultless public servant whose resignation is accepted and two ministerial staffers, who are at fault to some degree, and their resignations are not accepted but they are terminated and they then get a bonus of tens of thousands of dollars—at least $10,000 but maybe $30,000—for the privilege of being sacked when Ms Bisshop walks out with the basic entitlements. Is that justice, Minister? Senator Hill—I do not think it is an entirely fair way to put it, because, presumably, you are not suggesting that Ms Bisshop should have been sacked. Senator ROBERT RAY—No, I am not. Senator Hill—In fact, from what I have heard today, she was counselled against resigning. Despite that counselling, she nevertheless chose to resign. You may be seeking to argue that, in that circumstance, there ought to be a mechanism that gives some separation payment. I do not know. But I think it is pretty rough to put it in such terms in that you have found guilt against the two from Mr Howard’s office a minute ago and you are now suggesting that guilt should be found against her. Senator ROBERT RAY—Not at all. You know I am not suggesting that at all. Senator Hill—In order that she could get a higher payment.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 310 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—You have just distorted that entirely. What I am suggesting is that Mr Morris and Ms McKenna’s resignations should have been accepted and that they should have been paid out on the basis that they resigned, not that they were sacked. They resigned on the Thursday and they were sacked on the Friday. By that very act of the Prime Minister not accepting their resignation they were enriched by that decision. That is what I am suggesting. I am not suggesting Ms Bisshop should have been sacked. My suggestion there is that she should be sitting behind us somewhere in the room for being a top class public servant. Senator Hill—It seems that her senior colleagues also share the view that she should be sitting behind us. Senator ROBERT RAY—Senator Hill, during this rather unpleasant time for the Prime Minister of ministerial difficulty, can you tell me why the member for La Trobe was down in the Prime Minister’s office making all the phone calls to senior DAS officers and none of the prime ministerial staff? Couldn’t they be trusted? Senator Hill—I have to say I do not know what you are talking about. Can I invite you to expand and provide us with a bit of base material? Senator ROBERT RAY—I know this will focus your mind on it: we are talking about the week before the Crows won the Grand Final on a Saturday. Does that focus your attention, Senator Hill? Senator Hill—You’ve got it. Senator ROBERT RAY—The various constant phone calls to the Secretary of DAS, to the Deputy Secretary of DAS, and to the head of Ministerial and Parliamentary Services, when the Prime Minister wanted to talk to them—other than his personal meetings, which we might come to in a moment—were made by Mr Charles, the member for La Trobe, who then put the Prime Minister through. He is a bit too important to be a receptionist, isn’t he? Senator Hill—You puzzle me because it was a very difficult and distressing period. I was involved in quite a few discussions and I did not see Mr Charles at any of those times. You obviously know a lot that I do not know about this particular matter. Senator ROBERT RAY—It may have been someone impersonating Mr Charles. Senator Hill—I do not know. What was he doing? Senator ROBERT RAY—He was ringing the Secretary of DAS, the Deputy Secretary of DAS, the head of Parliamentary Services saying, ‘I have got the Prime Minister, he wants to speak to you.’ I could not quite work that out. Senator Hill—I find that very puzzling. Are you sure it was not somebody else? Is there somebody of the name of Charles who works in the Prime Minister’s office? Senator ROBERT RAY—With an American accent? You are joking! Senator Hill—Ex-fighter pilot type. Senator ROBERT RAY—I think you are on thin ice there, frog. Minister, you said to Senator Cook on 21 October, with regard to the abolition of DAS—I take it that it is a Prime Ministerial function to abolish departments? Mr Blick—It is in fact the Governor-General, but it is on the advice of the Prime Minister. Senator ROBERT RAY—On the advice of the Prime Minister. Let us cut to the chase: the Prime Minister directed the abolition of DAS. Let us put that on the record and we can

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 311 say that His Excellency was gracious enough to accept that advice. Can we get by that one now? Senator Hill—Pursuant to convention. Senator ROBERT RAY—Pursuant to convention. Thank you. Senator Hill, you said: The government believes the functions of the Department of Administrative Services can be better conducted under the authority of the Department of Finance. We think we can achieve the administrative load that was its task in the past in a more efficient way and deliver the responsibilities of government more effectively. Basically, it is just a reorganisation of administration to achieve the best outcome. I have not said that with the elan and the panache that you can bring to these things. That was certainly not your attitude, was it, on 4 June 1997 when you said, ‘I certainly do not know of any plan to abolish the department and I do not know of any plan to grow the department.’ When was the decision made to abolish DAS? Senator Hill—There had been debate from time to time over a number of years as to where DAS most effectively fits into administrative structure. It is true that I, certainly, knew of no plan to make that administrative change until shortly before it was made. Senator ROBERT RAY—So you do not know why it was made? Senator Hill—Why it was taken was for reasons that I said in the Senate, that the Prime Minister reached the view that he could get a more efficient and effective administration of those operations through Finance. Senator ROBERT RAY—Just coincidental that this occurred at a time in which three ministers had resigned. Senator Hill—I do not think that ‘coincidentally’ fully explains it. With the change in personnel you could also argue the point of view that putting new personnel together is an appropriate time. If you believe you can get a more efficient administrative structure in a different way you can argue that that is a very appropriate time to do it. Senator ROBERT RAY—The Prime Minister blamed DAS for his ministerial problems, didn’t he? Senator Hill—No, no. The Prime Minister blames his colleagues for the ministerial problems. But there certainly has been a view that some of these matters could have been administered more effectively than they have been. We have had that debate really going on all year. Senator ROBERT RAY—Are you saying that in the two meetings Mr Howard had—one on a Wednesday on approximately 24 or 25 September, and the other at the Lodge at 8.30 or 9.30 on the following Sunday with the Secretary and Deputy Secretary—he did not abuse the senior DAS officials there? Are you telling me that? Senator Hill—I do not know what you are talking about. Senator ROBERT RAY—Well, we have got this explanation from you that DAS has been abolished so that the government can save money and it is restructuring. They are all valid reasons. But this did not happen when you came into government, it did not happen when I asked questions in June; it was not even in contemplation. Three ministers get into trouble, a scapegoat is found, it is DAS, and so suddenly senior officers of DAS get abused, they get sacked, they get absolutely persecuted— Senator WATSON—I am not sure about this scenario.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 312 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—You come along on Friday and you will find out about that, Senator Watson. They get persecuted, and the Prime Minister is extremely abusive of the senior officers, laying blame at their feet. Senator Hill—I am surprised to hear all of that. Firstly, I do not think it is the Prime Minister’s style, but, secondly, although obviously the Prime Minister formed the view in the end that the functions could be more effectively administered elsewhere, he does, as I just said, attribute blame to his colleagues. There has been, as I said, an ongoing debate about DAS within the administrative structures and, as more and more of its functions have been outsourced, that debate has to some extent intensified. Senator ROBERT RAY—It must have passed right over your head last June when answering questions on it. Senator Hill—I think we have even had discussions in this estimates committee about it, when you have asked about the future of DAS, bearing in mind the structural changes that have been occurring. Senator ROBERT RAY—And guess what? No sign from you that anything is in the wind about change, on 4 June this year. Senator Hill—But that is the point I am making, that, although that clearly was an active debate—or you would not have been asking the questions—at that time there had been no decision to absorb it within another department. Senator ROBERT RAY—Okay. What background papers about departmental restructure on Admin Services had been prepared prior to 24 September 1997, Mr Blick? Senator Hill—I do not know whether there would have been any—do you keep a sort of ongoing tally of administrative structures? Mr Blick—We routinely prepare those kinds of papers at election time. To the best of my recollection, there were no papers prepared within PM&C prior to the decision to abolish— Senator ROBERT RAY—None on a whiteboard in the Prime Minister’s office, Senator Hill? Senator Hill—I do not think so. But I think that you are conveniently, if I might suggest, overlooking the fact that there has been this quite long debate about the most appropriate home for the functions that remained within the Department of Administrative Services, and you recognised that by asking questions in previous estimates committees. You could have said, for example, that the writing seems to be on the wall because so many of its functions were basically disappearing as the structures of government administration changed. Senator ROBERT RAY—We will go into some detail on that but, first of all, was the Prime Minister or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet involved in the selection of the DAS-DoF integration team? Mr Blick—No. Senator ROBERT RAY—You weren’t? Mr Blick—I wasn’t, no. Senator ROBERT RAY—Surely when one department is virtually absorbing another your department has some say in who stays and who goes and how they approach it. Mr Blick—Usually these things sort themselves out without any involvement from us. If we are asked to offer an opinion, we usually say that we think people should follow functions,

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 313 so that if a function is moving from one department to another department then the people carrying out that function go with it. Senator ROBERT RAY—I am just wondering who set up the integration team. There was an integration team. Mr Mackay was taken out of DAS to be on it. Who authorised that? Mr Blick—I believe that was the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administra- tion. Senator ROBERT RAY—What, Mr Boxall? Mr Blick—Yes. He had responsibility for most of the functions of DAS. Senator ROBERT RAY—So he not only chose people from his own department; he chose people that he wanted from the other department on the integration team. Mr Blick—I presume that to be the case, but we were not involved in that. Senator Hill—We could find out, or we could wait till the Finance estimates, but I presume that Mr Fahey ticked off on that team. As I understand it, Fahey was given responsibility for the integration. Senator ROBERT RAY—I am puzzled that in this integration thing not one Department of Finance officer has lost a job and up to 300 to 400 DAS officers are going to lose their job. I am just wondering whether this integration team is really approaching the matter in a fair and equitable manner. I might find it arguable that a majority of people in Finance had more ability than a majority of people in DAS; I could accept that. But everyone? I doubt it very much. Senator Hill—But it might, as Mr Blick has said, flow from the functions. Senator ROBERT RAY—It might. Let us leave it at that. But what about corporate services, where they are going to merge both? Senator Hill—Yes. I do not know the answer to that, but I am sure that you will get the answers to that in the Finance estimates. Senator ROBERT RAY—We can’t even get a briefing off them about the reorganisation. That is how arrogant Minister Fahey is. If we ask for a briefing on a department reorganisa- tion, 90 per cent of your colleagues are only too happy to give it, as we were. Not in the case of DoFA. Senator Hill—I am surprised to hear that. Senator ROBERT RAY—We were too. As you know, it will be full tote odds when they get here. Did the Department of Finance provide a paper to the Prime Minister or PM&C indicating that a merger or takeover, whichever term you want to use, between DAS and DoF would generate savings in the order of $32 million per annum? Mr Blick—I recollect being shown a piece of paper by one of my colleagues, not in the area that I am responsible for, which speculated about a savings option involving changes to DAS functions along the lines that you may be talking about. I do not recall the particular figures you are talking about being in that paper. To the best of my recollection, the matter was not taken any further within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I was shown this document some little while before the administrative arrangements changed. As I say, the matter was not taken any further within our department. I cannot even assert that this was anything other than a draft document rather than something that constituted formal advice. Senator ROBERT RAY—So that paper now has no official status?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 314 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Blick—To my mind, it had no official status at the time. Senator ROBERT RAY—Was it commissioned before or after the decision to abolish DAS? Mr Blick—I am not sure whether ‘commissioned’ is the word I would use. It appeared under my nose before the decision to abolish DAS. Senator ROBERT RAY—But after the ministerial fracas or recent unpleasantness; is that the best description? Mr Blick—I would have to check the exact dates. It was around that time. Senator Hill—Unhappy memories. Mr Blick—It may not be possible to check the exact dates. Senator ROBERT RAY—Whilst you are not crucial to the integration of the two departments, the Prime Minister and PM&C, or one or the other in combination, determined the carve-up of areas. Is that right? Mr Blick—That is correct, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Could you tell me first of all why MaPS-Comcar went into DoFA? It is not a line department, is it? Is there a particular reason why it went there rather than somewhere else? Why did Ministerial and Parliamentary Services, which incorporates Comcar and is pretty alien to the culture of Finance, go into that department rather than, for instance, PM&C or somewhere else? Senator Hill—I thought that it was fairly logical. I do not think the Prime Minister is too keen on growing PM&C. Mr Blick—That is probably right. Senator Hill—I do not think there was any reason other than that. I cannot understand the argument against it. Senator ROBERT RAY—What about OGIA? Senator Hill—What happened to that? Senator ROBERT RAY—It went to the same place. Does it fit well with Finance? Senator Hill—Apart from the awards and symbols subprogram, which was very appropriately lodged within Prime Minister and Cabinet, everything went to the Department of Finance. As I am reminded, under the structure as we originally had it, DAS was within the Finance portfolio. Senator ROBERT RAY—As Veterans’ Affairs is in Defence but is separate. Senator Hill—Which does not mean that you cannot change it. I guess it demonstrates that there was seen to be a logical link from the very beginning. Basically, all of it was absorbed within Finance apart from a few bits around the edges—some very specialist areas. Senator ROBERT RAY—A slightly different one is the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Why was that put in here? It traditionally likes to be independent of Treasury and Finance. Senator Hill—I understood that it likes to be independent of Treasury. I was not aware that it wanted to be independent of Finance. Senator ROBERT RAY—I see. You still think there is a difference between the two? Senator Hill—I think so.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 315

Senator ROBERT RAY—I follow what you are saying, I think. Senator FAULKNER—Were you or PM&C apprised by Mr Bob Searle, the Secretary of the Grants Commission, what the Grants Commission’s view was in relation to where it might be appropriately placed in the departmental restructuring? Mr Blick—The only knowledge I have of that was via a publication in the newspaper to the effect that he had sent a circular around to staff indicating that he was not terribly happy with the proposed break-up. Senator FAULKNER—As you can appreciate, I read the same newspaper article. Mr Blick—I thought you might have, Senator. Senator FAULKNER—It was described as a minute from Mr Searle sent to staff. That is the only background you have in relation to that. Mr Blick—As I recall it, that was something that was said by the newspaper to have occurred after the decision was announced and after the break-up was already established. Senator FAULKNER—Does PM&C believe that there is a strong case that the Commonwealth Grants Commission should remain independent of departmental policy? Mr Blick—I would have thought the answer to that was probably yes, but it is not something we have had to concern ourselves with. Senator FAULKNER—Are you saying to us that this is a bit of a turf war between Treasury and Finance? Mr Blick—I would not characterise it that way, no. Senator FAULKNER—Fair enough. Can I ask you about the Awards and National Symbols Branch which is something that has found its home in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the reorganisation. I was interested to hear the background to that occurring. Mr Blick—There is really none other than we have already given you. It was a decision by the Prime Minister that that would be the most appropriate location for it, given that DAS was being abolished. Senator FAULKNER—Yes, but what advice did the Prime Minister have from PM&C on this issue? Senator Hill—They would have been keen to get it—wouldn’t you? Mr Blick—There was no formal written advice. There were discussions between me, Mr Moore-Wilton, the Prime Minister and people in the Prime Minister’s office. They were very informal discussions, and I could not assert that they necessarily influenced the issue one way or the other. Senator FAULKNER—Did the Prime Minister sign off a minute or recommendation, or did he just say, ‘This is the way it is going to work’? Surely there was some level of formal process involved in the transfer of that branch. Mr Blick—In the sense that there was advice to the Governor-General as a result of which he signed an Executive Council instrument, that is true, and the Prime Minister provided advice to the Governor-General in that context. Senator FAULKNER—But one assumes that that advice was prepared in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Mr Blick—Yes, it was the ordinary Executive Council formal documentation—after the decision was made.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 316 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator FAULKNER—And the decision was made by the Prime Minister without a formal brief before him? Mr Blick—Without a formal piece of paper before him, yes. Senator FAULKNER—Without a piece of paper? Mr Blick—Yes. Senator FAULKNER—I would be interested to hear about the lobbying efforts of the Awards and National Symbols Branch. Could you tell us how effective— Mr Blick—So would I. Senator FAULKNER—I thought you might be able to inform us. Let us take it back a couple of steps, because we really want to understand this. In the informal discussions between you, Mr Moore-Wilton and the Prime Minister, was it your view, Mr Blick, that PM&C should see Awards and National Symbols become an important part of your empire? Mr Blick—Mr Chairman, I would prefer not to have to answer that question, if I may. I do not think it is appropriate for me to canvass my own views on the matter and the advice I might have provided. Senator FAULKNER—That is fair enough. You have told us there were no formal written advices. That is why I am trying to put the questions in a slightly different way than one ordinarily would. You would think there would be a paper trail on something like this, but often it is wise not to have one, I suppose. Was it the informal advice of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, communicated through the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, that Awards and National Symbols should become part of PM&C? Mr Blick—As I have said, I do not think it is appropriate for me to answer that question in the terms that you have asked it. ACTING CHAIR (Senator Calvert)—Senator Faulkner, you would know that it is not obligatory for a public servant to comment on advice given to the Prime Minister. Senator FAULKNER—Did either you, Mr Blick, or Mr Moore-Wilton have discussions with officers from Awards and National Symbols prior to a decision being made by the Prime Minister in relation to where those particular functions would finally reside? Mr Blick—I did not have any such discussions and I am not aware of anyone else having done so. Senator FAULKNER—So you do not know whether Mr Moore-Wilton had any discussions? Mr Blick—I do not know whether he did. Senator ROBERT RAY—Can I just go back: when was the decision actually formally made for Awards and National Symbols to go to PM&C? Mr Blick—The Governor-General made his decision on 9 October. That was the day of the swearing-in of the new ministers. Senator ROBERT RAY—So he made that decision. When did the Prime Minister make a decision to recommend to him, do you know? Mr Blick—As I think I said before, I could not pin down a particular moment or time but the decision was made, to the best of my recollection, some time in the week before that—

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 317 including the long weekend before that. But I could not tell you when the Prime Minister formed the judgment in his mind that that was the appropriate course of action. Senator ROBERT RAY—I was not asking about the abolition of DAS. Mr Blick—No. I am really making the same point in relation to that as I am in relation to the split. Senator ROBERT RAY—And you know that even though there is no paperwork to tell you. Mr Blick—As I said to you before, I was present at various discussions. I could certainly attest that, by the end of the long weekend, that decision was a firm one because there was a media release put out on the Sunday or the Monday—I cannot recall exactly which day. Senator ROBERT RAY—That is the 6th, is it? Mr Blick—That is right, the 6th was the Monday. I think the media release may have gone out on the Sunday. Senator ROBERT RAY—Would it be the normal operating procedure for the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to see what you would call a medium level DAS officer to discuss the future of Awards and National Symbols? Mr Blick—The Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has hitherto been on the Council for the Order of Australia. I would have thought it was reasonably normal—it might not be routine, but it would not be untoward—for him to talk about those issues. Senator ROBERT RAY—So it would not be out of the ordinary for the head of Awards and National Symbols in DAS at the time when DAS is about to be abolished to seek an appointment to see the secretary to discuss the branch’s future because it would be known to him? Mr Blick—That is quite possible. I do not know that it happened, but it is quite possible that it could have happened. Senator ROBERT RAY—Could you take the question on notice as to whether the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Max Moore-Wilton, met with the head of Awards and National Symbols? Senator Hill—During that weekend? Mr Blick—I know for a fact that he met with him very shortly after the decision because he came over to see me to talk about the future of his branch. Senator ROBERT RAY—I see. This is on 9 October, isn’t it? Mr Blick—It would have been after the announcement of the decision, but possibly before the actual formal approval by the Governor-General. Senator ROBERT RAY—He came over to see you and Mr Max Moore-Wilton on 9 October. Mr Blick—Again I am testing my memory, but my recollection is that either I suggested to him or he rang me and thought it was about time we had a conversation about the branch and the sorts of issues that were around in the branch. I recall that, at that time, he also happened to see Mr Moore-Wilton. Senator ROBERT RAY—He certainly did. Was he confirmed in his job by that point?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 318 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Blick—As I said to you before, our principle in these matters is that people follow functions. There would have been no sense in which we would have had any expectation that that would not occur. Senator ROBERT RAY—A lot of employees of DAS did not follow their function, did they? Why is this different? It is a different way of operating, I suppose. Your department is different from the Department of Finance. You took the function and the people. Senator Hill—Mr Blick said earlier that that is the way they have seen these things normally occur when there has been an amalgamation. Senator FAULKNER—Can you confirm, Mr Blick, that the only issues that you discussed with the head of the branch were those that related to its functions and its future in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which I think, without wanting to put words into your mouth, is basically the thrust of what you said to us a moment ago? Mr Blick—The meeting I can remember having with him—as I said, I cannot remember the exact day—we discussed the fact that we would be expecting his branch to be integrated within the department. We discussed issues relating to accommodation—where they would be—and the time frame within which they would be able to come and join us physically. I received a very useful and comprehensive brief on the current issues in relation to awards and symbols. Senator ROBERT RAY—You did not get a broader briefing on what else was happening in DAS, did you? Mr Blick—No. Senator ROBERT RAY—No—you didn’t. You cannot give us a date, but I think it was 9 October. Mr Blick—You may be right, I am sure it was some time in that week. Senator ROBERT RAY—It was certainly in the same day that he went to see Mr Max Moore-Wilton. Mr Blick—As I recall it, he met Mr Moore-Wilton in my presence; there was not a separate meeting. But there may have been a separate meeting that I do not know about. Senator ROBERT RAY—You were not told of the separate meeting? Mr Blick—I have never heard of a separate meeting. Senator FAULKNER—But clearly by this stage the Prime Minister had made it clear to you and the Secretary to Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that a formal decision had been made in relation to the future of Awards and National Symbols branch? Mr Blick—Yes, as I recall it, this was announced in the media release of the long weekend. Mr Bonsey has just reminded me that later in that week—we think on the ninth—we had our annual work plan discussion with Mr Moore-Wilton and we invited Mr O’Neill along to that meeting. Senator FAULKNER—Just so I am clear: the media release obviously proceeded the formal functions of the Governor-General being concluded on this? Mr Blick—Yes, that is right. Senator FAULKNER—Obviously, some time before the media release was issued, the Prime Minister had made his decision in relation to this matter? Mr Blick—Yes, otherwise it would not have been in the media release.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 319

Senator FAULKNER—Trying to come to grips with that process is a little difficult because, as you advised earlier, really in a sense the only formal process, if you like, was that involving the Governor-General? Mr Blick—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Could you take these questions on notice? Did the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet meet with Mr O’Neill on 9 October? Did they discuss the future of honours and awards? Did they also do a review of the future prospects of other personnel in the Department of Administrative Services? Did Mr Max Moore-Wilton take any action thereinafter based on advice given to him by Mr O’Neill? Mr Blick—I can answer all of those questions without taking them on notice. Except in the sense that there may have been a meeting I am not aware of, the answer to those questions, to the best of my recollection, is— Senator ROBERT RAY—But you were not at the meeting. Mr Blick—Yes, we had this work plan discussion— Senator ROBERT RAY—No. We are not talking about that meeting. We are asking whether there was a separate meeting between Mr Max Moore-Wilton and Mr O’Neill. Mr Blick—I will answer it in terms of the meeting we did have because those issues did, in fact, get discussed in the meeting that we had. The issues that you have asked about were discussed in the meeting that we did have jointly with Mr Moore-Wilton. Senator FAULKNER—I thought the issues were limited to the functions of Awards and National Symbols, the current issues and the future involvement in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Mr Blick—That is, broadly speaking, what Senator Ray was asking. Senator FAULKNER—No, I think you must have misheard him. Senator ROBERT RAY—Let us go again. On or about 8, 9 or 10 October, that period, I am asking, firstly, did Mr Max Moore-Wilton, Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, meet with the head of Awards and National Symbols? Secondly, was their discussion restricted to matters concerning Awards and National Symbols or did they have a much broader discussion on personnel in the Department of Administrative Services? Mr Blick—To my knowledge, the answer to the last question is yes. Obviously the answer to the previous two questions is yes. We discussed— Senator ROBERT RAY—No. You were not present. Senator FAULKNER—This is a separate meeting that we are asking about. Senator ROBERT RAY—Otherwise I would be asking you in detail. Mr Blick—I guess what I am trying to suggest to you is that there may have been only one meeting and that these issues were discussed in that meeting. Senator FAULKNER—I think what Senator Ray is asking is: what if there was not only the one meeting? Senator ROBERT RAY—Let us go to that meeting. At that meeting, was the future of the two deputy secretaries discussed? Mr Blick—No, because they were not part of the Awards and National Symbols branch.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 320 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—Good. I will repeat my questions. Did Mr Max Moore-Wilton meet with Mr O’Neill separately? Did they discuss existing personnel in the then Department of Administrative Services, which was about to be abolished? Finally, why would Mr Max Moore-Wilton be discussing it with a relatively junior officer? You were not at the meeting, Mr Blick, so I do not expect you to be able to answer it. Mr Blick—I took you to ask me previously whether there had been discussion of the future of people within the Awards and National Symbols branch. Senator ROBERT RAY—No. Mr Blick—If the question is whether they discussed other people, then obviously we have a different issue. Senator ROBERT RAY—We will come back to that in a few minutes. We have been going through the abolition of DAS. Let me go to the position of Mr Mellors. When was Mr Mellors informed that he no longer had a job? Mr Blick—I do not know the answer to that, Senator. Senator FAULKNER—Who would inform him? Senator ROBERT RAY—Can you confirm that Mr Max Moore-Wilton rang him to say that he did not have a job? Mr Blick—I cannot personally confirm that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Can you take that on notice? It is the most basic question. Does anyone have knowledge of a letter written by Mr Mellors to Mr Max Moore-Wilton following his being informed that he no longer had a job? Mr Blick—Mr Moore-Wilton would know about that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Could you take on notice whether Mr Mellors wrote to Mr Max Moore-Wilton? Senator Hill—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—I would like you to take another question on notice. This will require judgment of whether you can release the substance of that letter and whether you can affirm that what Mr Mellors simply asked for, seeing as he was being made redundant rather than resigning, was a slightly enhanced financial package and a public acknowledgment that his administration was competent, especially the downsizing of the commercial areas. Could you take that on notice? Senator Hill—I presume that we would need the agreement of Mr Mellors to release matters that concerned his financial arrangements. Senator ROBERT RAY—I do not think it went to detail, Minister, but certainly that would have to be protected. I would expect you to exercise your necessary judgment. Is it a fact that Mr Max Moore-Wilton never responded in writing to the letter from Mr Mellors? Senator Hill—I will have to find out the answer to that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Are you aware that Mr Mellors tried to ring Mr Max Moore- Wilton for five days but Mr Max Moore-Wilton was unavailable to return his call or take a call from him? Mr Blick—I am not aware of that.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 321

Senator ROBERT RAY—Are you aware that when finally, after this five days, Mr Mellors met with Mr Max Moore-Wilton Mr Mellors was informed that the Prime Minister had, in fact, refused the two requests Mr Mellors put in the letter to Mr Max Moore-Wilton? Senator Hill—We are not. We will have to confirm the requests. We can find out the outcome of that matter. Senator ROBERT RAY—Just while we are on the broad question, could you tell us how many departmental secretaries have departed the scene since 11 March 1996? Mr Bonsey—I cannot remember if there were six or seven as part of the— Senator ROBERT RAY—I will help you out. I think it was six—plus one. Mr Bonsey—Six. Then there was Michael Keating somewhat later. Senator ROBERT RAY—So that is seven. Mr Bonsey—Then there was Mr Taylor over the summer period. Senator ROBERT RAY—That is eight. Senator Hill—There was the industry chap going off to— Mr Bonsey—That was Mr Taylor. Senator Hill—To education— Senator ROBERT RAY—Hollway? Is that nine? Mr Bonsey—Yes. Mr Blick—Stephen Skehill from Attorney-General’s. Senator ROBERT RAY—Mellors. Mr Bonsey—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—So we have had 11 departmental heads leave in 18 months. You were kind enough once before to calculate the cost of the payout for those seven, I think. Could I have the total figure now for the 11? You can take that on notice. Could you find out what the total package is for the 11—aggregated, not disaggregated? Mr Blick—When you say ‘payout’, do you mean in terms of compensation for early termination or superannuation? Senator ROBERT RAY—I mean the cheque that I will pick up one day and you will pick up one day when we leave, Mr Blick. Do you understand that? I am sure you do. Senator Hill—But in aggregated form, it can be a touch misleading, can it not? It might have an effect on cash flow. Senator ROBERT RAY—I am sure you will be able to defend the decision by pointing out that this may involve some long service leave or other accoutrements put into the overall total. We do not want to disaggregate it because it might indicate what each individual— Senator Hill—No, I know that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Minister, is there any impediment in future to the government employing Mr Mellors as a consultant for any particular task, as has happened with other departmental secretaries? Senator Hill—I thought we had a guideline on that.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 322 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Blick—There is no formal impediment, Senator. There would be some difficulty if it were proposed to employ somebody who had left recently on matters which were intimately connected with their previous duties. Senator ROBERT RAY—Have any of the 11 departmental secretaries who have so far gone to serve the community more closely been employed as a consultant in any part of the government? Mr Blick—Could you repeat the question? Senator ROBERT RAY—Have any of the 11 departed departmental secretaries been employed anywhere in government as a consultant? Mr Blick—I believe there have been some employed in that way. Senator ROBERT RAY—They do not come to mind though? Mr Blick—I cannot give you a detailed list here, but I am certainly aware of at least one. Senator Hill—A number of them are on government appointed boards. Mr Blick—That is true. Senator ROBERT RAY—Mr Volker, Mr Hamilton, Mr Costello, Mr Mellors all got boards, did they? I do not think so. If anyone has been treated abysmally, that person is Mr Mellors. He served your government loyally and very well. Senator FAULKNER—In relation to Mr Godfrey of the former Department of Administrative Services, at the time of the abolition of the department he appeared to be—it seemed from afar—placed in limbo of some description. Maybe you can let me know what actually occurred at that time. Did he go on leave? Mr Blick—I do not know, Senator. I had heard that he was on leave at one time, but I do not know whether that connects with the time that you are referring to. Senator FAULKNER—Can you give the committee any detail in relation to the role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in finalising Mr Godfrey’s settlement, for want of a better word, the final details of his retirement package? Was there any involvement that you are aware of by the department. Mr Blick—We are not aware of any involvement by PM&C. On the assumption that there was a voluntary early retirement, it would be a matter for the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission. Senator FAULKNER—Appreciating that there would obviously be an involvement for the public service commission—which I think is the point that you are making to me—are you aware of any other involvement from any departmental officer outside the public service commission? Mr Blick—I am not, Senator, no. Senator ROBERT RAY—Would it not be improper for a PM&C officer to interfere in such a process? Mr Blick—It did not occur, as far as I am aware. It would not necessarily be improper for an officer of PM&C to give an opinion if asked. We are talking in hypothetical terms here. Senator ROBERT RAY—By whom? Mr Blick—Hypothetically, if the head of a department were to ring the head of another department and say, ‘What do you think I should do in relation to X?’ it would not be improper for the person to provide informal advice.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 323

Senator ROBERT RAY—That is fine, yes. Senator FAULKNER—You are not suggesting that the Public Service Commissioner would seek advice in such an issue. Mr Blick—No, I am not suggesting that. Senator FAULKNER—In fact, it would be improper, would it not, for the Public Service Commissioner to seek advice on such a matter. Mr Blick—Not necessarily, no. Senator FAULKNER—Why not? Mr Blick—The Public Service Commissioner might feel he needed some wisdom from a third party to help him make up his mind about something. Senator ROBERT RAY—That is the case where the initiative comes from the Public Service Commissioner. Mr Blick—I thought that was the point of the question. Senator FAULKNER—It was. Senator ROBERT RAY—What if the initiative comes from someone else to the Public Service Commissioner? Mr Blick—Again, without a specific case, it is very difficult to make a blanket observation that something would be improper. Senator FAULKNER—What would be useful to have here is the Public Service Commissioner as we deal with this issue. Is Dr Shergold available? Mr Kennedy—Dr Shergold is overseas at the moment, Senator. Senator FAULKNER—That is a pity. Senator Hill—We offer you Mr Kennedy. Senator ROBERT RAY—There is a big difference. Actually, we are better off. Senator FAULKNER—I do not want to get into too much detail about Mr Godfrey, who is obviously a senior officer of DAS, and his status. I indicated before that I had heard that he was somewhat in limbo following the abolition of the department. I do not know if that is still the case. What I am interested in understanding is what the role of the Public Service Commissioner might have been in finalising details of Mr Godfrey’s settlement. Mr Kennedy—I understand that the details of the amount to be offered as a redundancy benefit to Mr Godfrey were discussed and negotiated with the Public Service Commissioner and Mr Godfrey direct. There were no other people present. That would, in the normal course, be then processed by our SES team. The commissioner took the view that until the inquiry that was being conducted under the Public Service Act had been completed it was probably not appropriate for the redundancy benefit to be given effect. I understand—this is hearsay from the commissioner and Mr Godfrey—that it was suggested to Mr Godfrey that he take a month’s leave while these matters were being sorted out. He would not have been in limbo, though. He would have been an officer of the new department. Senator FAULKNER—I appreciate that. They are words I am using for want of a better description, not actually understanding what formal status he might have had. I appreciate that. Could you tell the committee, please, Mr Kennedy, when the Public Service Commissioner first met with Mr Godfrey on these matters?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 324 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Kennedy—No, I am sorry, I cannot, but it would have been after the functions were transferred to DAS. I understand that Mr Godfrey had a discussion with the new secretary, Dr Boxall and, as a result of that, he would have seen Dr Shergold. That is the normal way these things happen. Senator ROBERT RAY—Would this have been about 10 October? Mr Kennedy—My guess would be some time like that, but I really would not know. Senator ROBERT RAY—So Mr Godfrey had a 4½-minute discussion with Dr Boxall about his future and then, on the same day, he went to see the Public Service Commissioner to inform him that he had no further future in government, according to Dr Boxall, and he negotiated a redundancy with the Public Service Commissioner. That is correct, isn’t it? Mr Kennedy—The timings, the amount of time with Dr Boxall I do not know, but my understanding is that the steps were in that order. Senator ROBERT RAY—I was being generous—it was probably 2½ minutes. Senator FAULKNER—So it was after that very brief discussion, for want of a better description, which is generous— Senator ROBERT RAY—It might have been 9 October. Senator FAULKNER—Wednesday, 9 October, I think. Mr Godfrey fronts up to the Public Service Commissioner. I think that is the thrust of what you are saying? Mr Kennedy—Yes. Senator FAULKNER—That is understandable. I appreciate that, Mr Kennedy. That makes a lot of sense. Did the Public Service Commissioner and Mr Godfrey reach agreement about these matters? Mr Kennedy—That is my understanding, yes. Senator FAULKNER—So Mr Godfrey had an extremely brief discussion with the Secretary to the Department of Finance, who basically indicated— Senator ROBERT RAY—Get on your bike. Senator FAULKNER—‘Get on your bike. You’re out the door. Goodbye.’ He goes and sees the Public Service Commissioner, quite properly, as you have indicated to us, he effectively negotiates a settlement, a payout, a package, for want of a better description, with the Public Service Commissioner and that is finalised? Mr Kennedy—Yes, but whether it was finalised all at the one meeting or in subsequent meetings or telephone conversations I do not know. But I do know that an agreement was reached. Senator ROBERT RAY—I will interpolate here. The agreement was reached. There was no mention of him waiting on the results of an inquiry that I think you were conducting, but we will leave that for another time. It was not put to him then that these negotiations were subject at that stage to any inquiries about what role he may have played? Mr Kennedy—I think that is probably right because I had a telephone discussion with Dr Shergold. He was ringing me to find out whether I thought the results of my inquiry might have any implications for Mr Godfrey. The general approach to redundancies is that when people are subject to the possibility of discipline charges you postpone the question of a redundancy until the discipline charges have been resolved. I said to Dr Shergold that I was not in a position to form a view one way or the other at that point, but that Mr Godfrey had

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 325 been identified by the head of the division as a person who may have been involved in one aspect of the matter I was inquiring into. Senator ROBERT RAY—Before we get to that point, I think that is all very positive what you have done there. There is a gap between Dr Shergold negotiating a settlement with Mr Godfrey and then Dr Shergold’s phone call to you. There is a gap there, you see, in which Mr Godfrey thinks the settlement is final, Dr Shergold has failed to indicate to him in any way that it is not finalised and suddenly you get the phone call. There is a gap there. Mr Kennedy—If the timing is in that order. I do not know whether the timing is in the way you have described—I genuinely do not know. Senator FAULKNER—But we have a situation where agreement was reached. It is very difficult in the absence of Dr Shergold to establish this. I would much prefer, obviously, to ask him this direct question, but I cannot if he is not with us. Perhaps you will be able to assist us. Is it true that, after this agreement was reached, Dr Shergold received a telephone communication or a number of telephone communications from Mr Max Moore-Wilton, the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, about this settlement? Mr Kennedy—If he has, he never mentioned them to me. The only person he mentioned to me that he had discussed it with, apart from me, was Dr Boxall. So he never mentioned that to me, one way or the other. Senator ROBERT RAY—So Dr Boxall had a discussion with Dr Shergold about Mr Godfrey’s redundancy? Mr Kennedy—My understanding was that after Dr Shergold had rung me and I had passed this information on he formed the view that the redundancy should not be effected immediately and he told me that he was going to talk to Dr Boxall about that view. Senator ROBERT RAY—I see. That’s fair enough. Mr Kennedy—Can I interpolate that in these cases involving SES officers you will often reach an agreement about an appropriate redundancy payment, it is on the basis that all the normal paperwork is carried through and sometimes you will hear or the department will then mention to you, ‘Oh, by the way, X or Y is happening’, which makes you go back and say, ‘Well, you had better fix that up before we can go ahead with this.’ Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. Senator FAULKNER—But I want to know whether Mr Max Moore-Wilton rang Dr Shergold. I appreciate what you have said to us—that you cannot answer that question directly—so could you take on notice whether he rang him on either one or more than one occasion. I also want to know, Mr Kennedy, if as a result of those phone calls Dr Shergold, the Public Service Commissioner, withdrew the redundancy offer to Mr Godfrey. Further, I would like to know from Dr Shergold—but we can perhaps progress this at a later stage—if there was any ministerial involvement in those self-same processes. Mr Kennedy—I will find the answers to those, but I was not aware that at any stage the redundancy arrangement had been withdrawn as distinct from it being suggested that it should wait until certain other things were resolved. But I will ask Dr Shergold those three things. Senator ROBERT RAY—While you are doing that, you might check what the redundancy offer was on that date—I think 9 October—and what was finally paid out. I do not know when it was—maybe this week some time—and whether it was a different rate and he was then made a different offer.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 326 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Kennedy—It has been practice not to provide a lot of detailed information about individuals. Senator ROBERT RAY—No, I am asking whether there is a differential rate, not what the difference is. Mr Kennedy—Okay, just whether there is a differential rate. Senator ROBERT RAY—I mean, he may have got a better offer, in which case the process would have assisted him. But you have no knowledge, Mr Blick, do you, of Mr Max Moore- Wilton ringing Dr Shergold over Mr Godfrey following a meeting with an official from Awards and Symbols? You have no knowledge of that? Mr Blick—No knowledge whatever. Mr Kennedy—There is probably just one other point I should mention. The Public Service Commissioner or his delegate fixes the benefit that is payable if a person takes early retirement. And the commissioner is sometimes involved in discussions about ancillary matters such as whether they should be allowed some training, whether they should be given some financial counselling. But we would not necessarily know the details of that in any particular case. So it will just go to what Dr Shergold’s arrangements were. Senator FAULKNER—Yes, I made it clear to you that I want to know whether Mr Max Moore-Wilton interfered. Mr Kennedy—Yes, I understand that part too. But on the last question it is the differential? Senator FAULKNER—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—We still stand by our testimony, don’t we, Mr Blick, of 4 June? I asked who was the Public Service Commissioner’s ultimate boss and you said: He does not have an ultimate boss other than the Prime Minister. He is an independent statutory office holder within the Prime Minister’s portfolio. That is still extant? Mr Blick—That is absolutely the case, yes, Senator. Senator ROBERT RAY—Thank you, Mr Blick. Can I ask about the status of just a few reports. You might stay there, Mr Kennedy, although I do not think you are in a position to help us a lot. What happened to the Mellors report on Mr McGauran? Mr Blick—I do not know the answer to that, Senator. I do not know what report you are referring to. Senator ROBERT RAY—At his press conference on 26 September Mr Howard indicated to us as a whole that he had asked the then Secretary of DAS, Mr Mellors, to do a full report on Mr McGauran and that it would be on the Prime Minister’s desk by the following Monday morning. Mr Blick—I have no knowledge of the fate of that. That is really all I can say. Senator ROBERT RAY—I am not seeking a copy of the report, but I am just wondering if it was ever delivered. Do you want to take that part on notice? Senator Hill—We will find that out. Senator ROBERT RAY—I go now to the Auditor-General’s report. This has probably happened—I apologise—but have the terms of reference been released on that? Mr Blick—I think the answer is that the letter from the Prime Minister to the Auditor- General has not been tabled in the House of Representatives—I could be wrong about that.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 327

In our view it would be a document that would come within the terms of Senator Faulkner’s return to order that has not yet been finalised in the Senate. Senator FAULKNER—I am expecting Senator Hill to be cooperative on that matter. I suppose I should not have delayed it while waiting for cooperation, but I am sure he will see the light at some point. Senator Hill—Yesterday we were ordered to table documents within three hours and we met it. Senator FAULKNER—I am a reasonable fellow. I cannot help myself. Senator Hill—I thought the letter was tabled. Senator ROBERT RAY—It may well have been. Senator Hill—I remember a debate ensued about the appropriate role of the Auditor- General. Senator ROBERT RAY—Basically there were two aspects, at least that was our understanding: first, the Auditor-General was to do an audit of Mr Sharp’s travel allowance; be that as it may, the second issue went to the foreknowledge of Morris, the department and everyone else. I am right in saying that the Auditor-General has rejected that part, hasn’t he? Mr Blick—Yes. Now that you have reminded me I think that letter was tabled. Senator ROBERT RAY—The Auditor-General said that part of the reference, whatever it was—we have knowledge of it—is not within the ambit of the work he does. Mr Blick—That is correct. Senator ROBERT RAY—So no work has been done on that at all—no inquiries, nothing. That has lapsed. Senator Hill—I am not sure what the outcome was. I think we had a question on it in the Senate. Mr Blick—As a topic in isolation, there has been no inquiry directed to further establishing the facts beyond the statements that have already been made by Mr Morris, Ms McKenna and so on. Senator ROBERT RAY—In other words, the inquiry just went nowhere. Senator Hill—That is probably a bit unfair, I would say. The Prime Minister clearly included it within the original instruction. It was the Auditor-General who said it was inappropriate. Senator ROBERT RAY—Included in the instruction post was the McKenna-Morris explanation. It was sent to the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General said, ‘I can do half of this and not the other half.’ So the other half just lapses. That is the point we are trying to establish. Senator Hill—Can I get some firm response for that? Senator ROBERT RAY—Okay. Incidentally, has the Auditor-General reported on the actual audit function? Mr Blick—I do not think he has yet reported. He indicated at the time that it would take several weeks. That time has not expired. Senator ROBERT RAY—I am not criticising him on the timing. Is that a document that is tabled in parliament or does it go directly to the Prime Minister?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 328 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator Hill—It goes to the Prime Minister. Senator ROBERT RAY—It is not one that you table in parliament. Are you sure of that? Mr Blick—I think it would have to be tabled in parliament. Senator FAULKNER—As a matter of course, one would assume. Senator ROBERT RAY—I am confirming that. I would have thought it was a matter of course. Senator FAULKNER—We will have to watch Senator Hill on that one. Senator ROBERT RAY—Thanks for alerting us. Senator FAULKNER—While you are at the table, Mr Kennedy, I do not know whether your own inquiry has concluded yet. That might be something you feel you are at liberty to share with the committee. Regardless of that, could you let us know with the abolition of the Department of Administrative Services whether that actually had an impact on the legal basis of your own inquiry? The legal status was something that was not clear to me. Could you just clear that up? Mr Kennedy—Yes. Under the Public Service Act the authorised officer has to be an officer of the department whose staff are being inquired into. I was formally moved into the Department of Administrative Services and then authorised by Mr Mellors and given the commission from him to conduct the inquiry. Upon the abolition of the department, I automatically reverted back to the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission. So it was necessary for me to transfer into the Department of Finance and Administration, be authorised by Dr Boxall and then receive a fresh remit from him as an authorised officer. I completed my investigation and reported to him, and then I was transferred back to the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission. Senator FAULKNER—Thank you for that. I was interested in how those matters might have been handled. For your findings to have effect, I assume it is important for the appropriate steps to have been taken to, in effect, legalise those processes or make sure they are absolutely proper. Would that be right? Mr Kennedy—Yes. Probably if people gave me information which in some way might have been defamatory of people, for example, and it had not been a duly authorised inquiry they might have been at some risk. Perhaps if I could explain a bit further: the authorised officer can do one of three things. The authorised officer can say, ‘I do not think anyone has failed to fulfil their duties as an officer,’ or ‘I think there might have been something wrong, but I have counselled the person and no further action needs to be taken.’ The third option is to say, ‘I have charged someone under the Public Service Act,’ and then those charges go to be heard by an inquiry officer. If I had come to the third conclusion, all those legal points would have been absolutely critical to the validity of the charges. Senator FAULKNER—I assume you have had some discussions with Dr Boxall or other appropriate officers of the new DoFA in relation to those particular arrangements being regularised. Mr Kennedy—Yes, that is right. I met with Dr Boxall and Mr Early, told them what seemed to be going on at the time with the material I had collected to date and told them that the advice from the Attorney-General’s Department was that we would need to go through these steps again. I prepared the necessary documents then and sent them over to Dr Boxall. So I had one meeting with him.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 329

Senator FAULKNER—You have given me an indirect but clear answer to the first part of my first question to you. Given that you have indicated you now find yourself back with the Public Service Commission, effectively that means that your work there is concluded. Mr Kennedy—Yes. Senator FAULKNER—As far as your report is concerned, who would that now be before? Mr Kennedy—The report was completed on Thursday, 25 October. It was delivered to Dr Boxall’s office the following morning, and I returned that day to the Public Service Commission. It is a matter for Dr Boxall, as the head of the agency, to decide what to do. My understanding is that he has accepted my report and its recommendations, and that he has sent a circular out to the staff about that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Did he make a copy available to Mr Mellors by way of courtesy? Mr Kennedy—I gave Dr Boxall an original and I kept one copy myself in case he had any questions. Senator ROBERT RAY—So the further transmission of it is not really your responsibility? Mr Kennedy—No. Senator FAULKNER—So we are clear on that: as far as you are concerned, you hold a copy of the report, a copy has gone to Dr Boxall, as you have indicated, and you have not been responsible for the dissemination of the report any wider? Mr Kennedy—No, my responsibility as an authorised officer ceases once I give my report to the departmental secretary. It is not normal for those sorts of reports to be circulated widely because they mention people’s names, they express views that people have expressed and things like that. Mr Mellors did see and comment on two drafts of my report during the process of my investigation. Senator ROBERT RAY—Does PM&C have a copy of the Kennedy report? Mr Blick—No. Senator ROBERT RAY—Do you know whether the Prime Minister got a copy? Senator Hill—I do not know. Senator ROBERT RAY—I do not think he would read it. If there were adverse findings in your report—and I say ‘if’ because I do not think you can disclose directly to us what is in the report—should they be shown to an officer concerned? We went through this with another report done not by the Public Service Commission but an internal DAS inquiry. Mr Kennedy—The advice from the Attorney-General’s Department—and it is put in one of their legal briefing notes—is that if an authorised officer thinks that he or she may charge an officer, while the strict rules of natural justice probably do not completely apply to something like this one should in those circumstances tell the person the nature of the charges and give them an opportunity to respond to them before the report is finalised. Senator ROBERT RAY—So that is done at the draft stage? Mr Kennedy—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—That is good. Mr Kennedy—Mr Bonsey has corrected me that they would be proposed charges. They would not be charges. Could I correct a date. I think I have got my dates wrong. The report was signed off by me on Thursday, 30 October and delivered on Friday, 31 October. I apologise for that.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 330 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—Just going back to when you were appointed to do this job. At the time we had an Auditor-General’s report half under way because the other half got disqualified, we had the Mellors report going and an AFP inquiry. You were actually the fourth one to be commissioned. What date were you commissioned to do your inquiry? Is ‘commissioned’ the right word? Mr Kennedy—I cannot recollect. It was the week before the long weekend. I was on leave at the time. My recollection is that it was something like 1 October. Senator ROBERT RAY—The weekend was 27 and 28 September, so it was around Wednesday, 1 October? Mr Kennedy—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Was it Mr Mellors who asked you to do it? Mr Kennedy—That is right. He asked Dr Shergold if he would make me available to do it. Senator ROBERT RAY—You were basically looking not at the totality of DAS but ministerial and parliamentary services? Mr Kennedy—No, I was only looking at one precise issue, which was the circumstances surrounding the advice that had been given, in the relation to the tabling in the House of Representatives, to the minister, the minister’s office and other people in the department, which largely resolved itself into the executive of the department. Senator ROBERT RAY—This is what we call the asterisk issue and related matters. Mr Kennedy—There were a range of other issues as well but it was the nature of the advice that was given in relation to the tabling. Senator ROBERT RAY—And this was based partly on Mr Jull’s statement in the parliament that he had acted on advice that Mr Mellors did not know where that advice came from? Mr Kennedy—I am aware of Mr Jull’s statement. Mr Mellors never put it to me like that. He just said that he wanted to have the circumstances thoroughly investigated. Senator FAULKNER—During the conduct of your inquiry during the month of October were you approached by any officer of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet indicating to you an approach that they felt you might take in relation to the preparation of your report and the conduct of your inquiries? Mr Kennedy—I had three discussions with Mr Blick, from memory, in which the inquiry came up in one way or another. The first was on the long weekend when he rang me because Mr Bonsey was away to say who would be the contact in the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission for the machinery of government arrangements. It was normally that Mr Bonsey and I liaised on this. I said it would be Mr Harding. We mentioned the fact that I was doing this inquiry, but we did not discuss outcomes and anything else and he made no comments. The second time was when I was preparing to meet with Dr Boxall. I discussed with Mr Blick whether the inquiry should proceed just as a matter of administrative process not in terms of outcomes. He expressed the view that the inquiry, having been started, should proceed. I passed that view on to Dr Boxall. After that we had another discussion when I asked him, as part of some general enquiries I was making of a number of people, if he had any material in PM&C that he thought I should

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 331 be aware of or if he thought there were any particular issues that might be particularly relevant from his perspective. He said there were no particular materials other than the resignation statements and related material by Ms McKenna, Mr Morris and Mr Sutherland that were tabled. He sent those over to me. He also gave me some questions that he had been thinking about earlier on an entirely informal basis about issues that might arise. I do not think we had any other discussions about it. He and I, by the nature of our work, talk often, but at no stage did he ever express a view about what the outcome of the inquiry should be. Senator FAULKNER—Does that accord with your recollection of those events, Mr Blick? Mr Blick—Yes, it does. Senator FAULKNER—Did you have any contact with any other officer of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? Mr Kennedy—No, I do not think so. I did not have any with Martin. I suppose the reason I am hesitating is that people who are assisting me with the inquiry might have been in touch with PM&C to identify dates and documents. But, certainly, I did not have any substantive discussion with anyone. Senator FAULKNER—You have not had any approach from any individual—I do not want to limit this to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—that you were concerned about in the sense that it may have been an approach that might, say, improperly influence the nature of your considerations and report? Mr Kennedy—No. I have had discussions at one stage with Dr Shergold about a couple of points. I have had a number of discussions with Mr Mellors, as well as discussions with Dr Boxall. None of those people expressed any view to me about the conclusions I should reach. I am aware that there were views about that people had agendas and those sorts of things, but I have to say that no-one in a position of authority ever expressed any view to me about what the outcome of the investigation should be. Senator FAULKNER—I think people will be pleased to hear that. Senator ROBERT RAY—We do hear things, Mr Kennedy. What we hear is that you approached this with absolute integrity, so you should be congratulated. Mr Kennedy—Thank you. Senator ROBERT RAY—I want to move on to another area—that is, the expansion of the size of the ministry. This will no doubt come as a massive disappointment for you, Senator Hill, because I notice you are recorded in a division as voting against the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1987 that took the ministry out to 30. Would you like to tell us what changed so dramatically over the 10 years? I could really bore you with extensive quotes from Senator Durack, Senator Chaney and Senator Short. I might just share one with you from Mr Peter McGauran and then we will move on. He said: Three new ministers have been appointed and the government is trying to tell us that it is only going to cost $97,000. That $97,000 is simply extra pay and allowances. What about all their staff? What about the new entitlements to ministerial cars? What about the new travel arrangements and overnight allowances? That was Mr McGauran on 17 September. There is a touch of irony. When you came into government you argued that you were taking the ministry down to 28 and showing everyone the way for small government, didn’t you? What changed on the way to the forum? Senator Hill—Philosophically, we would still commend that approach. Senator ROBERT RAY—So make me chaste but not yet?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 332 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator Hill—As things have worked out, it was clearly believed by the Prime Minister that the most effective ministerial outcome would require the mix and number of ministers that we have presently. Senator ROBERT RAY—So you have 30 ministers and 11 parliamentary secretaries. Is that right? Senator Hill—Yes. The officers tell me that that is right. Senator ROBERT RAY—I will not embarrass you by going through all the quotes I dug out because they are not great; they are not bad. Senator Hill—I can imagine. Senator ROBERT RAY—Out of that, has there been a consequential increase in government staffing as a result of this? There are two new ministers and they usually average six staff each, or have you taken them off others? Mr Bonsey—Overall, there has been an increase in ministerial staffing since our previous discussion of the issue. Some of that is related to the fact of additional ministers, but not all of it. Senator ROBERT RAY—Okay. What is the overall tally? Mr Bonsey—It is 311, which compares with, when we were last discussing it in June, 296. After the election, it was 294. Senator ROBERT RAY—So it is now 311. We always have this difficulty, don’t we, Mr Bonsey, that the Prime Minister approves the overall staffing level and then the administration of it is in admin services, so we do not want to ask you questions that overlap. Let us go back through those historic figures. You said after the election it was what? Mr Bonsey—The figure we had was 294. Senator ROBERT RAY—That rings a bell. And then it went up by two or three, didn’t it? Mr Bonsey—Certainly. In response to a question on 16 June, the answer was 296. Senator ROBERT RAY—Okay. It has gone up to 311 mostly, we assume—I do not want to put words in your mouth—because we have two extra ministers, but not entirely because of that. Mr Bonsey—I do not want to do the precise arithmetic, but I can run through the details of that. Senator ROBERT RAY—Of where the increases are? Mr Bonsey—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, give us the highlights. Mr Bonsey—In broad terms, there were new positions for Senator Vanstone, Mr Reith— Senator FAULKNER—Senator Vanstone? Mr Bonsey—I am talking historically from when we last went through this. Senator FAULKNER—I was going to say she has just been chopped out of the Cabinet. Mr Bonsey—Certainly, but I am talking historically. Senator FAULKNER—Just on Senator Vanstone, given that she has had such a massive demotion, could you let us know whether after her staff increase there has been a subsequent decrease?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 333

Mr Bonsey—That is right. When she moved to become Minister for Justice, she would have taken on broadly the allocation of a non-cabinet minister. Senator ROBERT RAY—You have done this for us before. Would you like to take that on notice? Mr Bonsey—Yes, we will take that on notice if you want us to. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, but a couple of weeks. Let’s not make it couple of months. We will cut a deal here and get the list of the allocation to ministers, parliamentary secretaries, government secretariat, Ron Boswell and all the others, like you normally do for us. Mr Bonsey—We can take that on notice. Senator ROBERT RAY—Do you think you would be able to get it within two weeks? I am sorry to press you, but it would be interesting to have a look. Mr Bonsey—Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Has the Prime Minister adjusted opposition staffing once this went up by 15? Mr Bonsey—No. Senator ROBERT RAY—Why not? Mr Bonsey—Because the expectation and the correspondence with the Leader of the Opposition is in terms of an annual review, which is expected next March. Senator ROBERT RAY—In effect, you have just jumped it up by 15, Senator Hill, so you can have the advantage of that. We have got to wait until March at least for an annual review, do we? Senator Hill—I did not realise that it was done on an annual basis. Senator FAULKNER—It is a massive advantage of incumbency, isn’t it? Tremendous lags! I suppose it is an advantage you will not have for long but it is a worry for us. Senator ROBERT RAY—Surely this argument for an annual review anticipates only changes by one or two to government staffing, not a massive jump like this? After all, we are getting your ministers in the Senate complaining about drafting of legislation. We started this parliamentary session in 1996 with 21 less shadow ministerial staff than you had in opposition and about 80 electorate staff. Now you jump your own by 15 and we are told we can wait until next March. Surely that can be resolved before then. Senator Hill—I understood that that was being looked at now. Why don’t I have a go at checking the progress? Senator FAULKNER—Yes, we would appreciate that. That would be good. Senator ROBERT RAY—That would be good. We will get those figures and have a look at them. Thank you. You might also take on board what the increased costs were of these extra 15 staff members. I am not sure how you calculate the extra costs. Let us just take it as salary, as an aggregated figure, so we do not know anyone’s specific salary, including ministerial staff allowance. Let us look at it from that point. Senator Hill—We will give an estimate. Mr Bonsey—We will be dependent on information from Finance and Administration. Senator Hill—Whilst you are pausing, apparently Mr Morris and Mr Jull have not yet been replaced on the advertising committee.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 334 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—Human progress! Proves Darwin’s theory. These questions are going to be pursued at much greater length in DoFA, but did Mr Jull write to the Prime Minister about a review of parliamentary entitlements some time in September/October 1996? Mr Blick—I think we would have to take that on notice. We cannot recall. Senator ROBERT RAY—I will try to prompt your memory, but you will still take it on notice. Would you also find out why the Prime Minister and Mr Morris did not bother to respond? I will put it in context. I can clearly remember the Prime Minister going and puffing out his chest and saying, ‘This is the only government that has ever tackled properly the proper administration of parliamentary entitlements.’ What I am putting to you, Mr Blick, is he was written to by Mr Jull in September/October 1996, before certain matters came to light, and was not even graced with a response. You might take both those on notice. Senator Hill—I have one other point I want to put on the record in case there was any misunderstanding. I am told that Stephen Brady and Nicholas Hossack, who were the two staff members referred to in Mr Howard’s office, were not involved in the substance of any decision on documents arising out of the work of Mr Lang. Senator ROBERT RAY—That rings true. Senator Hill—I think they wanted to make that clear. Senator ROBERT RAY—It is not on our list. Senator FAULKNER—Can I ask whether the Secretary to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has any direct or personal role in overseeing or facilitating decisions for alterations or maintenance to departmental property or buildings, whether fittings and the like, interior or exterior? Mr Blick—He would be entitled to be consulted about those and, indeed, has been consulted from time to time about such things. Given that it may involve the expenditure of departmental funds, yes. Senator FAULKNER—Are there any particular issues that he has driven himself? Are there any particular matters that have come about as a result of the initiative of the secretary himself? Mr Blick—I am not personally aware of any initiatives that he has taken. I do know, however, that we have been engaged in a process of repartitioning and refurbishment as a result of the fact that our numbers have substantially diminished since the election. Part of those processes has involved considerable alterations in the department, and the latest of those alterations involves a refurbishment of our entrance foyer. Given that the secretary frequently enters the building through the foyer, I would have expected him to take an interest in the nature of those alterations, and I believe he has been consulted about them. Senator FAULKNER—I see. Has that partitioning and refurbishment occurred right throughout the building, effectively? Mr Blick—The majority of the building. We have had to relocate areas of the department throughout the building and we have also been vacating some premises. It is a bit hard to describe it, but our building is basically in two pieces, and the smaller piece had some units in it which have been withdrawn from there and relocated within our main building. Effectively, most of that is now finished, but that took place over some months. Senator FAULKNER—Has the secretary missed out this time in terms of his own office being refurbished?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 335

Mr Blick—There has been no refurbishment during that process of the secretary’s office. Senator FAULKNER—So he has missed out this time. Maybe next time. Has the secretary been involved in any discussions or negotiations with other levels of government or other departments about the amenity near the PM&C building itself, in other words, the direct surroundings of the PM&C building itself? Mr Blick—I wonder if you could be a bit more precise, Senator. Senator FAULKNER—Why not? Has he had any role in relation to what has happened to the bus shelter on National Circuit? Mr Blick—He indicated in a meeting with staff some while ago that he had had some discussions with the ACT administration—it is not entirely clear in my recollection at what level those discussions had occurred—about damage that had been done to a bus shelter immediately outside the building. Senator FAULKNER—So he has got his mind on the big issues, has he? He is dealing with the bus shelter outside. Mr Blick—I do not think I can really respond to that question. Senator FAULKNER—I would like to know a bit more about this. I would like to know what offended him about the bus shelter, what he wanted someone to do something about the bus shelter and how it all came about. If you could let me know, I would appreciate it. Who were the people present at this meeting when he made the grand announcement about the bus shelter initiative? Mr Blick—This was a meeting at which a large number of people were present at which he had undertaken to consult with the staff about issues that they might find of interest. The question of the bus shelter came up in that discussion—not initiated by the secretary. Senator FAULKNER—But the secretary himself initiated action on the bus shelter, didn’t he? Mr Blick—I cannot say that for sure, but the implication to some extent was that he had certainly been involved in discussions. Senator FAULKNER—Who had he discussed this with? Could you tell us that? Mr Blick—As I said before, I do not know exactly who he discussed it with. He did not elaborate on that in the discussion we had with him. Senator FAULKNER—Perhaps you could take on notice, first of all, who he had discussions with in relation to the bus shelter. What was the thrust of his initiative in relation to the bus shelter? What was he setting out to achieve in relation to the bus shelter? Mr Blick—As I say, I cannot confirm that it was an initiative. The thrust of his concern appeared, from the nature of the discussion we had, to have been that the bus shelter had been damaged and was unsightly, and that some changes ought to be made to its configuration to ensure that it wasn’t. Senator FAULKNER—He was offended by the bus shelter, was he? Mr Blick—It is right outside the building. Senator FAULKNER—Does his office overlook the bus shelter? Mr Blick—It doesn’t. Senator FAULKNER—So when he walks outside he gets offended by the bus shelter?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 336 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Blick—As I say, it is difficult for me to answer precisely what was in his mind at the time. Senator FAULKNER—This is the bus shelter that is just a frame and a roof—it is a most extraordinary looking thing. This is apparently what he has been able to achieve. I gather we are left with the frame of a bus shelter and a roof. Is that right? Mr Blick—If it is the one that I am thinking of, that is correct. Senator FAULKNER—I think it is the one that he was thinking of. I understand there have been a lot of complaints from people, not only people who work in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, not only public servants but just people who use public transport in the winter. They now, courtesy of Mr Max Moore-Wilton, actually have to either sit or stand in a bus shelter that does not have any walls. Is that right? Mr Blick—That may be so. I would have to observe, however, that the responsibility for bus shelters lies with the ACT administration, not with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Senator FAULKNER—Yes, but Mr Max Moore-Wilton heavied the ACT administration to remove the walls of the bus shelter, didn’t he? Mr Blick—That is an interpretation, I am afraid, that I cannot put upon it. Senator FAULKNER—But that was what Mr Max Moore-Wilton was asked at the meeting of staff. Mr Blick—No, I do not think that was what he was asked at all. Senator FAULKNER—Could you perhaps explain to us what he was asked? Mr Blick—To the best of my recollection, he was asked whether he was in a position to make any changes to the current situation of the bus shelter, and to the best of my recollection he said that he was not prepared to do that. Senator FAULKNER—So he was responsible for having the walls of the bus shelter removed. It seems a bit insensitive to some of the staff and just members of the public who use public transport. Mr Blick—To be fair, it was the ACT administration that was responsible for having the walls of the bus shelter removed. Senator FAULKNER—But wasn’t it as a result of representations from Mr Max Moore- Wilton that the ACT administration removed the walls of a bus shelter outside the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? It is just extraordinary. Mr Blick—I have no direct knowledge of representations that he may have made. As I say, my understanding is that there may have been discussions between him and the ACT administration. Senator FAULKNER—But how would you feel if you were in the ACT administration and the secretary to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet gets on the telephone to you and says, ‘There’s a bus shelter outside. I don’t like it. I want you to remove the walls.’ Mr Blick—I do not know how I would feel if it happened to me. Senator FAULKNER—I think most people would feel that this is a very important public official in this country. The most senior public servant in Australia basically made a very strong representation that the walls of a bus shelter be removed and, not surprisingly, they were.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 337

Mr Blick—I am sorry, but I do not have the same information that you do. Senator FAULKNER—I think you know about the issue, Mr Blick. We have a backless and sideless bus shelter. I have had a number of people complain to me about this. Does Mr Max Moore-Wilton use public transport? Mr Blick—I do not know. He has access to a Commonwealth car. Senator FAULKNER—I bet that he does not use the bus shelter. Senator Hill—What bus shelter? Senator FAULKNER—Senator Hill, we have established that Mr Max Moore-Wilton has managed to get the walls and the back of a bus shelter removed on National Circuit outside the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet building because apparently he did not like the look of it. Senator Hill—That is a bit odd, isn’t it? Senator FAULKNER—It is a bit odd. I agree with you. You and I are at one on this issue, Senator Hill. Senator Hill—It is something that needs to be looked into. Senator FAULKNER—You could look through it, that is for sure; there is no doubt about that. I suggest you do so when you have absolutely nothing else to do. I do not think we can take the bus shelter issue any further because, after all, Mr Max Moore-Wilton has taken most of the bus shelter anyway. The Prime Minister tasked the Remuneration Tribunal to prepare a report for him in relation to parliamentarians’ entitlements, particularly travelling allowances and the like. I am interested in knowing whether we can have made available to the committee precisely the terms of the requests that the Prime Minister has made to the Remuneration Tribunal. I appreciate that the Remuneration Tribunal has concluded its preliminary work and presented a preliminary report. The Remuneration Tribunal has made that clear to the opposition, and I appreciate that. I do not want to go into the detail of it. I was interested in understanding the nature of the requests that the Prime Minister had made to the tribunal. Mr Blick—In our view, that comes within the terms of the return to order that you have on the Notice Paper in the Senate. The government would have been expecting to respond to it in that context. Senator ROBERT RAY—You know about the extra part that we do not know about, Mr Blick. Mr Blick—I believe that Senator Faulkner’s return to order comes up again next Monday. Senator FAULKNER—This is a comment directed to Senator Hill. I have deferred that return to order on a number of occasions because I have been waiting, perhaps in faint hope, for the government to agree to it so that we would not have to go down the track of having a long and drawn-out parliamentary debate, especially as there are a lot of other pressures on in the chamber. I appreciate and accept that it is caught up within the purview of that return to order. Outside that detail, is there a problem with that being provided to the committee? I understand that the return to order may or may not be progressed by the opposition. Senator Hill—The Prime Minister’s letter to the tribunal? Senator FAULKNER—All I am interested in is understanding the basis of the Prime Minister’s request. This is something I was a lot more interested in before the report had been finalised, but I would still be interested to know now.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 338 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator Hill—I would need the agreement of the Prime Minister. I cannot immediately see why I would not be able to. I will follow it up. Who are you dealing with on the return to order? Senator FAULKNER—Mr Blick raised the return to order. Senator Hill—Who is negotiating it? Mr Blick—Senator Faulkner has a return to order which would encompass this. As he said, he has been putting it off. Senator Hill—Who is he talking to? Mr Blick—He is not talking to anybody at the moment. We have been discussing within the Prime Minister’s office and between your office and Senator Minchin’s office the terms in which the government will respond to that. It covers all the documents leading to the resignation of Minister Sharp and so on. Senator Hill—I gather that Senator Minchin is involved in this process. Mr Blick—Currently we are considering the documents that will be released or not released in relation to that. The Prime Minister’s office is in the process of making decisions about it. Senator Hill—I will treat the letter to the Remuneration Tribunal as a separate issue and see whether it can be released to this committee. Senator ROBERT RAY—Is Minister Minchin going to respond to this in his role as Special Minister of State assigned to the PM’s department or in his role in DoFA? Mr Blick—I would have expected that, ultimately, Senator Hill would be the responsible minister when the return to order was debated in the Senate. Senator ROBERT RAY—No, I am sorry, I am talking about responding to the Remuneration Tribunal report on rearrangements. Mr Blick—I am sorry. Senator Hill—I do not know. I think the Special Minister of State— Mr Blick—Yes, it would be in his role as Special Minister of State administering the Department of Finance and Administration as distinct from his role as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister. Senator FAULKNER—Which department had responsibility for the development of the government’s submission to the Remuneration Tribunal? Mr Blick—Well, to the extent that there was a submission, it was contained in a letter from the Prime Minister to the Remuneration Tribunal. Is that what you are referring to? Senator FAULKNER—So, effectively, the Prime Minister’s tasking of the Remuneration Tribunal was the only formal submission that the tribunal had before it. Mr Blick—Yes, that is right. As I understand it, the Remuneration Tribunal had some consultations with officials in the now Department of Finance and Administration about the administrative issues surrounding travel allowance payments. Senator FAULKNER—Yes, I see. Senator Hill, has the government established yet a timetable in terms of a response to that Remuneration Tribunal report to the Prime Minister? Senator Hill—Not that I know of. I will make some inquiries. Senator ROBERT RAY—One of the other problems is that the Remuneration Tribunal gave this matter priority. A couple of other urgent matters—one that concerns us and eventually

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 339 you—were pushed aside. That is why I was wondering whether they can get back to those issues. Senator Hill—I will follow it up. Senator ROBERT RAY—I am now moving into another area. Did the Prime Minister reissue the guidelines on ministerial conduct following the recent unpleasantness of the three ministers? Mr Blick—There has been no new edition of it, but all new ministers get a copy as a matter of course. Senator ROBERT RAY—But did all existing ministers also get a second copy just to remind them? Mr Blick—I cannot answer that. I just do not know. Senator ROBERT RAY—They did not come through you; they were sent out— Mr Blick—I have no specific recollection of it. Senator ROBERT RAY—Is there any work in progress to rewrite the ministerial guidelines? Mr Blick—No, although I would have to say that bits of it are now out of date and will need to be revised in due course—not in terms of principles but simply in terms of particular matters mentioned in there that would no longer be factually correct. Senator ROBERT RAY—I move on to answers to questions on notice. There has been a tendency, especially in PM&C, after we have asked a factual question for the department to gratuitously add other material to compare this government’s performance with the previous one. Is that a decision of PM&C or a direction from the Prime Minister’s office? Mr Blick—As you know, these questions on notice are the responsibility ultimately of the minister of whom they are asked, and the Prime Minister has to make those decisions. Senator ROBERT RAY—You realise it is leading to a great degree of inconsistency. If we put a question on notice across all portfolios and one-third of them answer it with comparative costs and the other two-thirds do not, then we always draw the conclusion that comparative costs have only been put in one-third of the answers because the costs were favourable to the government in those portfolios and omitted the other two-thirds because they were not. Mr Blick—I am not immediately conscious of any questions to all ministers. Senator ROBERT RAY—Well, try one on the cost of media monitoring and transcripts, if you want a tester. Mr Blick—There was question No. 705 to the Minister representing the Prime Minister on 28 July. Is that the one you had in mind? Senator ROBERT RAY—That is one. Mr Blick—It is not apparent from the Hansard that it was asked of all ministers, which is why I responded in the way I did. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. When we put a question on notice to all ministers—and we do not do it often—is guidance sought from PM&C as to how the answer should be given across all departments? Mr Blick—Sometimes it is. Sometimes PM&C will initiate guidance to departments where it is apparent that there is a need for that.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 340 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator ROBERT RAY—Whilst I am grateful for the additional information comparing this government with the previous government, do you think you could take on board, when you give that guidance, that we would like it across all departments and not just those departments where the comparisons are favourable—if it is sought from you? Mr Blick—We can take that on board, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—In terms of another question put on notice across all departments on public opinion surveys, I must say that PM&C is to be commended for ringing my office for clarification on what the question meant, which meant we did not draft it quite perfectly. We are now getting the standard response back from every minister stating, ‘Sorry, we cannot answer this. The resources involved in answering this question are too extensive.’ I do not for a moment criticise a department for refusing to answer a question that would be too expensive, but is that on the basis of PM&C advice? Mr Blick—It is possible that it was. I cannot specifically recall that question, but that is sometimes the tenor of the advice we give, after consultation with departments to ascertain the kind of resources that might be required. Senator ROBERT RAY—I see. That question goes back over 18 months and covers all departments. First of all, I would not have thought the cost of answering that question does fall within this category, but we are still getting the standard answer back. If I were to narrow that question down to only a three-month period, do you think we would get a similar response from PM&C or any other department? I do not think you have responded yet. Senator Hill—I do not think I have responded. Senator ROBERT RAY—No. I think I have had three which have all been in identical wording. That is why I wondered whether there was a bit of democratic centralism occurring. Senator Hill—A bit of cross-referencing going on. Mr Blick—To the extent that we were involved in any assessment, we would still have to assess whether the resources that would be required were unreasonable; if they were not unreasonable, we would not be providing that advice. Senator ROBERT RAY—Would you look for the same answers that a previous government put on the public record, when those questions were asked by the now government of us, and we answered them? Mr Blick—One might. I cannot guarantee that one would, but one might. Senator ROBERT RAY—Do you concede there is a possibility of a danger that our good faith could be severely tested if these answers saying, ‘We don’t have the resources to answer them,’ are continually coming out? What I am really trying to get to is: doesn’t there have to be some justification? We are willing to cut slack on questions which are too complex and which involve too many resources, but isn’t there a danger of a government or a department hiding behind that? Mr Blick—My advice to departments or to the government would not be different were it the previous government or the current government. Senator Hill—Just going from my memory, we have very rarely responded that way. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, I think that is true. Senator Hill—Sometimes I think it is a very legitimate course of action to take which they have not taken when I get a 20-page response that has taken obviously hundreds of hours of work.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 341

Senator ROBERT RAY—Just a bit of gratuitous advice: in my last six years in the ministry I put the cost of preparation of the answer on it, which certainly deterred Senator Calvert after a while. You might just think about that. We are not trying to pressure you. In the case of these opinion polls, you cannot be doing that many. If it is just quantitative and qualitative polling commissioned by the department, I cannot see it being that extensive. If it is that extensive, then we have got a real issue. On another subject, who replaced Mr Mellors on the Management Advisory Board? Mr Blick—We do not believe there has been a replacement at this stage, Senator. If we find out differently, we will let you know. Senator ROBERT RAY—We are also looking at your annual report in this process. Page 12 of your annual report mentions four evaluations that were conducted covering the Australian Council for Women, the Register of Women, the decentralisation of the airline travel function, and departmental guarding arrangements. Are any of these evaluations publicly available? Mr Blick—Can I take that on notice and find out? Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. You will definitely have to take these questions on notice. How much did they cost? What changes were implemented arising out of these evaluations? Could we also have a copy of the department’s revised fraud control plan. I move to the interdepartmental committee on administrative law that PM&C chairs. We did discuss this previously. Can you tell me approximately how many meetings it has had in this financial year? Mr Bonsey—No, not off the top of my head. I would think in the order of five or six, but I would need to check that. Senator ROBERT RAY—We were a bit vague last time. When does it expect to report to government? Mr Bonsey—It is very close, Senator. Senator ROBERT RAY—We will hear its results and proceed. I will not ask you any more about it because you cannot tell us, can you? Mr Bonsey—That is right, Senator. Senator ROBERT RAY—The Office of the Status of Women is currently in PM&C estimates but is about to be shifted or has been shifted to another department? Mr Blick—No, it is still within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and I am not aware of any proposals to move it. Senator ROBERT RAY—We have just got a bit of confusion here. I am right in saying that it has approximately 25 staff? Senator Hill—There is a separate Minister for the Status of Women, but it still comes under your portfolio? Mr Blick—Yes, it does. The average staffing for the year to September is 26. Senator ROBERT RAY—Is the new minister in charge of those 26 staff? Mr Blick—The head of the office is in charge of them and they are responsible to the minister, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY—Are any other public servants responsible to this minister? Mr Blick—There would be a departmental liaison officer in her office. Senator ROBERT RAY—But no-one else?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 342 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Blick—I am not aware of any, no. Senator ROBERT RAY—So we have got a minister of the crown in charge of 26 people. Senator Hill—It sounds pretty efficient, doesn’t it? Senator ROBERT RAY—You could invite the whole section to your Christmas party, Senator Hill. I note in an answer to a question to Senator Faulkner on 18 August you provided some statistics by gender on the number of officers within the department and agencies that have accepted redundancies. Can you explain why in the Department of PM&C 32 males accepted redundancies yet over twice that amount of females—68—accepted redundancies? I accept of course that there is a slightly higher percentage of female employees in PM&C than there is males, but it is nothing like that proportion. Mr Blick—I can really only speculate on that. Voluntary redundancies tend to get more numerous as one gets down into the lower levels of agencies and the proportion of women tends to get more numerous as one gets down into the lower levels of agencies, so I expect that to be the explanation. Senator ROBERT RAY—So they are all victims of the glass ceiling, are they? Mr Blick—We do not accept that we have a glass ceiling in Prime Minister and Cabinet. Senator ROBERT RAY—We will not make any jokes about lowering parapets because it is not your department. For the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission the ratio is even higher—36 females to 12 males. Mr Blick—I cannot comment on that, except as Mr Bonsey reminds me, there is a very high proportion of women in the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission compared with most agencies. Perhaps Mr Kennedy will be able to comment. Senator FAULKNER—I have two questions. I hope the first is very simple. The first one relates to an answer to a question that I placed on notice, question 814, on public relations contracts. I will take you to answer 8(1)(a). There was a note here about ‘client research for three public seance and merit protection teams’. I was hoping that was a misprint. Could you clarify that? If there is a public seance, I am sure you will have it in a sideless and backless bus shelter. Is that a misprint? Mr Bonsey—It is something to do with the process of reproducing that in Hansard from the electronic disk version that we provide when lodging questions with the tabling officer. There are a number of misprints in that answer as it has appeared in the daily Hansard. Senator FAULKNER—None of them as wondrous as that one, though. Mr Bonsey—No. The type of error suggests to me very much that it has been scanned at some stage in the process. For example, the word ‘in’ has become just an ‘m’, and it seems that in several places the word ‘service’ has been oddly mutilated. I do not know whether or not ‘seance’ comes through on occasions. Senator FAULKNER—That is when you would be impressed that we read very closely these answers to questions on notice. If there is a public seance, we want to be there. Mr Bonsey—Action has been taken to ensure that the weekly version is correct. Senator FAULKNER—That is great. I have one other question just so I understand the processes in relation to briefs for the incoming Prime Minister. Are they regularly updated or just updated in accordance with the election cycle? Mr Blick—Usually the process involved in PM&C—I cannot answer for other ministers and other departments—is that we begin—

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 343

Senator FAULKNER—But the brief for the incoming Prime Minister would only be— Mr Blick—Sorry, I thought you— Senator FAULKNER—No. I am just talking about the brief for the incoming Prime Minister. It would be generated only out of PM&C, wouldn’t it? Mr Blick—Yes. The process usually begins immediately after the election is announced. To some extent there is some updating, but it is usually the creation of a whole new document for the incoming Prime Minister of either party. Senator FAULKNER—There has not been any flurry of activity in relation to briefs for the incoming Prime Minister over the last couple of months, has there? Mr Blick—We have undertaken no activity along those lines. Senator FAULKNER—So this is, effectively, very much tied to the election cycle? Mr Blick—Yes. Senator FAULKNER—I assumed that would be the case. CHAIR—As there are no further general questions, we will now move on to program 2. [5.22 p.m.] Program 2—Government support services Senator ROBERT RAY—Page 54 of the annual report states: Changes were made to the way written material is prepared and brought to Cabinet for consideration with a sharper focus on essential issues for discussion. It sounds to me like cutting down on cabinet submissions and making them a lot more simple. Is that right? Mr Blick—Yes. Cabinet submissions, as you probably recall, were tending to get very lengthy and detailed with a lot of very complex attachments. There has been a serious attempt made to streamline that process so that ministers can better understand the issues without having to wade through huge amounts of background material. Senator ROBERT RAY—No pictures yet. Mr Blick—I am not aware of any with pictures in them. Senator ROBERT RAY—Page 60 of the annual report states: A tender process has been carried out for the supply of official gifts and outsourcing is expected to be implemented in 1997-98. How are you going with that? Mr Blick—Either we let the contract in the last week or we are about to do so. Senator ROBERT RAY—Who won the tender? If you are about to do so, you cannot tell me yet. Mr Blick—We may have let the contract by now, but we will let you know. Senator ROBERT RAY—Just take it on notice to let us know once it is finalised. You think this will at least maintain the current quality of gifts? Mr Blick—That is certainly our objective. Senator ROBERT RAY—In the annual report on page 61, official establishments—you might have to take this on notice—have any dinners been arranged at the Lodge at the behest of Mr Ron Walker?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 344 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Blick—We would have to take that on notice. Senator ROBERT RAY—You will probably take this question on notice too: were any government resources used—I suppose you can only answer this in terms of PM&C—when the Liberal Party 500 Club visited parliament on Wednesday, 1 October 1997? Do you want to take that on notice? Mr Blick—Yes. I cannot guarantee we will be able to get you any information. Senator ROBERT RAY—You may not. Senator FAULKNER—I refer you to question on notice No. 626. I asked whether the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada invited the government to send a minister to a party fundraising dinner in the second half of 1997. I got a non-answer to that. Can anyone answer it now? Senator Hill—Have they invited? Senator FAULKNER—Yes, have they invited the government to send a minister to one of their party fundraising dinners? Mr Blick—Could you remind us of the answer we provided, Senator? Senator FAULKNER—I do not think you would want to be reminded of it. Senator ROBERT RAY—That was a silly question. Senator FAULKNER—It was this: Canada, as the honourable senator would be aware, is this year’s host to the APEC leaders summit and numerous ministerial APEC meetings. A minister would not travel overseas for the purpose of attending a function of the kind referred to. And so on. All I want to know is whether they invited someone. Maybe that part of the question could be taken on notice again. Mr Blick—We have no knowledge of an invitation, but we will get back to you on that. Senator FAULKNER—That would have been a better answer, ‘We have no knowledge’. CHAIR—Are there any questions on subprogram 2.1? [5.28 p.m.] Subprogram 2.1—Machinery of government Senator FAULKNER—Page 37 of the portfolio additional estimates statements says, in subprogram 2.1.1: Supplementation for the development and implementation of the Electronic Circulation and Management of Cabinet documentation— Would you explain to me what that means. Mr Blick—As you know, hitherto cabinet documents have been circulated by hand and in hard copy, which is a resource intensive and time consuming process. We suggested to the Prime Minister earlier this financial year—I think it was earlier this financial year, but it may have been earlier than that—that we should explore the possibility of electronic distribution via a secure network so that one did not any longer have to print off the large number of copies and one could enhance the security attached to such documents. That is basically what that is about. We are engaging in that as a project and we hope to have it up and running by the end of the year. Senator FAULKNER—Does that mean ministers will have secure communication lines to their Parliament House offices?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 345

Mr Blick—Yes. They already do have secure communication lines, as you probably recall, between ministerial offices. Senator FAULKNER—What about to their electorate offices, state ministerial offices, if you like? Mr Blick—Ultimately, as a later phase of this project, we would hope to achieve that too. It may, in the case of remote offices, involve not having landlines but using modems across the public network with appropriate security protections. Senator FAULKNER—Is that the same kind of secure data link that has gone into the Phillip Street office of the Prime Minister? I think that costs $72,000 a year. Mr Blick—It is similar in concept but, as I said, if we were connecting to remote offices elsewhere in Australia, we might choose not to use precisely the same technology. Senator FAULKNER—The $650,000 is spent on, precisely—? Mr Blick—This is to develop the software for a system along these lines, to purchase hardware. We think we may need to employ some private consultants in the IT area to help us do those things. And, of course, there are installation and training costs for people in ministers’ offices and people in departments. Senator FAULKNER—I have a general question in relation to the cost of the Prime Minister’s security. Has that been transferred to Attorney-General’s? That was transferred, I think, to A-G’s in 1996? Mr Blick—That was transferred to Attorney-General’s, yes. Senator FAULKNER—So, when the Prime Minister put out his savings claim—on 31 August he claimed that his occupancy of both the Lodge and Kirribilli House had resulted in overall savings of nearly $1 million in comparison with former Prime Minister Keating—did that take account of that transfer? Mr Blick—I believe it included the costs of those security measures. Senator FAULKNER—He talked about a saving in running costs of $374,990 for the same period as Mr Keating. Could you take it on notice to give us a detailed breakdown of how that figure was arrived at? Mr Blick—Yes. Senator FAULKNER—I do not want to bog the committee down, but I would also like to know what dates ‘the same period’ refers to. There has also been a saving in what is described as ‘guarding costs’ of $586,034 compared with Mr Keating. Senator ROBERT RAY—You might ask about the drop in electricity prices from the installation of the other stuff. Senator FAULKNER—I do not think security details should be made public in these sorts of forums or in answers to questions on notice. But with those constraints understood—quite seriously, please accept that constraint—if I could have explained to me how that figure was derived I would appreciate it. Also, I would like to know the total running costs of the Lodge and Kirribilli House from April 1996 to October 1997 and the guarding costs for the same period. I appreciate you have got to take that on notice. There are a couple of other questions in this area that I want to put on notice, given the time constraints that we now have. I will have to do a bit of work on these issues to put them on paper. With that constraint understood, Minister, I will not bog the committee down on that.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 346 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

In a spirit of cooperation, I ask for a comparatively early response to these questions on notice, given those considerations. I would appreciate that. CHAIR—Does that complete 2.1.1? Senator FAULKNER—There is a range of issues that I have indicated that I plan to put on notice in relation to that, Mr Chairman, which gets us through 2.1.1. CHAIR—That is fine. We will move on to subprogram 2.1.2. [5.33 p.m.] Subprogram 2.1.2—Government Business Senator ROBERT RAY—I want to ask about the organisation of the Constitutional Convention. Who is doing that? Mr Blick—Yes, that is me. Senator ROBERT RAY—I will just run through these. You may want to take some on notice. I understand. Could you give me an estimate of the total cost of convening the Constitutional Convention, less the costs incurred by the Australian Electoral Commission? Mr Blick—Yes, the cost of the Constitutional Convention and the public information program is expected to be $3.9 million. Senator ROBERT RAY—Would you give us a breakdown of the estimated cost of travel to and from the convention? Mr Blick—We will try to do that. The figure I have got at the moment is $1.8 million for the convention itself, including travel costs. But we can try to give you a more detailed breakdown. Senator ROBERT RAY—Will you be paying the costs of politicians to go or will that just come out of their normal entitlement? Mr Blick—The intention is that that would come out of their normal travel entitlements. Senator ROBERT RAY—Will you pay for state politicians? Mr Blick—The same applies to them. We would expect them to pay for their own travel. Senator ROBERT RAY—Even if they do not have an entitlement? Mr Blick—If they do not have an entitlement we would obviously need to consider their position, but I am not aware of any who do not. If we become aware of them, we will deal with it. Senator ROBERT RAY—Okay. The cost of allowances: what allowances are being paid— the daily rate? Mr Blick—We would not be paying allowances to federal politicians or state politicians who have an entitlement along those lines. The current expectation is that the daily rate paid to elected delegates and appointed delegates would be of the order of $145. Senator ROBERT RAY—Pretty tough. Fair enough. Who will provide staff for the Constitutional Convention and at what cost? Mr Blick—The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has a secretariat already and will provide the staff for the convention. I have to slightly qualify that by saying we are also employing a conference organiser to deal with some of the more routine logistical aspects of the convention, and there will be—

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 347

Senator ROBERT RAY—Have you explained to him that he will be dealing with Mr Sinclair and Mr Jones? Mr Blick—Yes. And there will be some— Senator FAULKNER—How did he react! Senator ROBERT RAY—So you have got a conference organiser? Mr Blick—There may also be some staff, for example, from Old Parliament House, who will obviously need to be there for a fair bit of the time. Senator ROBERT RAY—Have you got an estimated cost for hospitality? Mr Blick—We would include that in the $1.8 million that I have spoken about, but we will have to do that work as we go along. Senator ROBERT RAY—Have you had to undertake any renovations or alterations to Old Parliament House as a necessity for holding the convention as opposed to the normal ongoing program? Mr Blick—There may need to be some refurbishment of offices which really have been unoccupied for some time. When I say ‘refurbishment’ we would tend to think of putting furniture in there temporarily and taking it away again rather than doing any major, long-term refurbishment. We may have to do some upgrading of the airconditioning and lighting—again on a temporary basis—to take care of the special requirements of an event like this. Senator ROBERT RAY—Have you determined what the standing orders of the convention will be yet? Mr Blick—They are still under consideration by the government. Senator ROBERT RAY—Are the proceedings of the convention going to be Hansarded? If so, at what cost? Mr Blick—Yes, that is the intention. Senator ROBERT RAY—Do you know the cost? You can take that on notice, if you like. Mr Blick—I will take that on notice. In fact, I do not think we have costs at this stage, because we are still negotiating with Hansard about them. Senator ROBERT RAY—I see. What accommodation facilities are you doing for the media? Mr Blick—Again, that is something that we have not really reached a final position on. We are expecting to have media rooms, if I can put it that way, for media who are not located here in Parliament House. There will be a feed from the convention up here so that the media up here do not have to feel that they have to go down there to cover the event. But we are expecting that there may be media from elsewhere than here, and we will need to supply some sort of facilities for them. Senator ROBERT RAY—Fine. Without going into any details, have you got a cost for providing security for the convention? Mr Blick—Again, that is something which is in the process of being worked out at the moment. Obviously, we will have a cost in the not too distant future. CHAIR—That concludes program 2.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 348 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

[5.39 p.m.] Program 3—Corporate Services Senator FAULKNER—Can I take you to page 71 of the annual report in relation to leases. It says: Both leases were agreed and signed within the required timeframe. Can I have the dollar amount square metre rate of rent there, please? You might need to take that on notice. Senator Hill—We will take that on notice. Senator FAULKNER—Page 72 of the annual report says: A new Departmental network infrastructure using asynchronous transfer mode and switched ethernet technologies was installed. It goes on to say: This will allow for future enhancements and improved cost-effectiveness. What on earth does that mean? Mr Blick—Can we take that question on notice, please? Senator BOB COLLINS—I can actually tell you. Senator FAULKNER—All right, tell us. Come on. You don’t know— CHAIR—Tell us, Bob. Senator BOB COLLINS—Ethernet? I sure do. Senator FAULKNER—He does not know what the asynchronous transfer mode is, though. Senator BOB COLLINS—No, I don’t. Senator FAULKNER—No-one is being critical, I should say, Mr Blick, of your not knowing. In the annual report on page 151—which is, I think, 1.3.2 we are in now—about the Forests Taskforce, it says: Qualitative research in support of a national public relations campaign for the Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) process and outcomes Is that qualitative research a publicly available document? The quote is at the bottom of page 151 under ‘Category: Market Research’ and ‘Keys Young’. The sum of $36,592 is shown. Mr Blick—We do not know whether that is a public document, Senator, but we will find out. Senator FAULKNER—I would appreciate a copy of that document if that were possible— or a copy of the results. Certainly, if that is not possible, I would appreciate at a minimum a copy of the questions in the survey. Mr Blick—Yes. Senator FAULKNER—On page 46 of the annual report reference is made to ‘the contingency plan for radioactive space debris’. Can you tell me what is going on there? I am very worried about going outside. You certainly are not going to go to a backless or sideless bus shelter if there is radioactive debris around, I can tell you. You had better put our minds at rest. In the second-last paragraph it refers to a ‘contingency plan for radioactive space debris. Mr Blick—We will again have to provide you with further details on that later, Senator.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 349

Senator Hill—It is comforting to know it is being addressed. Senator FAULKNER—It may be comforting. That is all on that program. CHAIR—That finishes program 3. We will move to program 6—Public administration and accountability. Senator FAULKNER—We have not done program 1 yet. CHAIR—That is last. Senator FAULKNER—I was told the order was programs 2, 3, 1 and 6. [5.45 p.m.] Program 1—Departmental policy coordination Subprogram 1.1—Economic and industry policy Senator FAULKNER—Under subprogram 1.1.2, what analysis was undertaken by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to assess the Alice Springs to Darwin railway project? Mr Henderson—The department, in consultation with some other departments, did provide advice to the Prime Minister on that proposal including considering material provided by the Northern Territory government. Senator FAULKNER—So how substantial was this advice? Senator Hill—There has been an enormous amount of research done in the past. It referred to a lot of that, I can recall. The Hill report— Senator FAULKNER—With respect, that is not a particularly helpful answer, Minister. Senator BOB COLLINS—There is some considerable difficulty in citing that particular analysis if they recommended it should not be funded. Senator FAULKNER—What was the basis, Mr Henderson, for determining the project viability? Mr Henderson—As I said, we provided advice to the Prime Minister’s office. It drew on, to a significant extent, earlier reports on the topic. The decision was made by the government. Senator FAULKNER—What was the basis of the costings, Mr Henderson? Mr Henderson—The basis? Senator FAULKNER—Yes. How was the figure of $100 million derived? Did someone pluck that out of thin air? It seemed like a good idea at the time. Senator Hill—You will be aware that a lot of detailed cost assessments had been done for both the South Australia and the Northern Territory governments. There had been assessments then done of those assessments at the federal level. Government had to make a decision as to what figure would enable a viable project in terms of public contribution. I think it has always been accepted that the costing depended on a public contribution. We had on the table a commitment from both the South Australian government and the Northern Territory government. Those commitments and $100 million was basically assessed by the government to achieve that viability. Senator FAULKNER—Let us take it back a couple of steps. Perhaps you can help us, Mr Blick. What departmental resources do you have in terms of administrative and departmental support for the Federation Fund? Mr Blick—I will allow Mr Henderson to answer that.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 350 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Henderson—We have a Federation Fund Task Force that comprises four officers seconded from several other departments, plus for most of the time a PM&C officer dedicated to that group. They work to me. Senator FAULKNER—What does ‘for most of the time’ mean? More than half his or her time? Mr Henderson—Much more than half. Senator FAULKNER—The four seconded officers are working full-time on Federation Fund and related activities. Is that right? Mr Henderson—On Federation Fund. What do you mean by ‘related activities’? Senator FAULKNER—Federation Fund activities, if you want to use that terminology. I am just trying to be generous. Mr Henderson—They are assisting the Prime Minister. Our department is responsible for advising on the selection of the projects through the Prime Minister to cabinet. Senator FAULKNER—You are planning to see this particular level of departmental support develop as the activities of the Federation Fund devolve? Mr Henderson—No, on the contrary. We are advising the Prime Minister on the selection of the projects. Once they are selected, the detailed administration of those projects, to the extent that the Commonwealth does get into the details of individual projects, will be devolved to the relevant line departments. The National Museum project was announced in the budget at the time the Federation Fund was announced and throughout that has been the responsibility of the Department of Communi- cations and the Arts. Once the decision to commit $100 million for the Alice Springs to Darwin railway was made, and that is conditional on there being a viable private sector proponent, it was devolved to the Department of Transport and Regional Development to finalise the details. Senator FAULKNER—Is it the department’s expectation that all the announcements in relation to Federation Fund projects will be made before the next election? Mr Henderson—Subject to getting the relevant details from the states, the task force is working to a timetable that would enable the government to select the relevant projects this calendar year. That is the timetable we are working to. We have not discussed the precise timing with the Prime Minister. Senator FAULKNER—Are you saying that you will earmark $1 billion literally within another couple of months? Mr Henderson—We will have information available for ministers to make decisions that would commit $1 billion. Senator FAULKNER—So that is a matter for government. Mr Henderson—That is a matter for the government. Senator Hill—I think the Prime Minister announced the process that is being adopted, which included submissions by the states and a closing date—which has now passed, as I recall. I think at the beginning he said that it was his intention to make announcements by the end of this calendar year. He set down a timetable, as I recall. Senator FAULKNER—So the $1 billion break-down commences financial year 1998-99, is that right?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 351

Mr Henderson—That is right. Senator FAULKNER—That is $100 million that year? Mr Henderson—That is right. Senator FAULKNER—Could you remind me what happens in the out years after that? Mr Henderson—In 1998-99 it is $100 million then $200 million and $300 million. That was specified in the budget documents. Beyond that it has not been specified. Clearly, in the next budget a new year comes into the forward estimates. Senator FAULKNER—So the expectation is $400 million in the final year of the fund, is that right? Senator BOB COLLINS—So after $100 million, $200 million and $300 million it got too hard to add up, did it? Mr Henderson—It was clear that it was not all going to be spent in the present forward estimates period. Senator FAULKNER—What is actually quite clear is that not a brass razoo of it is going to be spent until financial year 1998-99, but all the decisions are going to be made on expenditure by the end of calendar year 1997. Senator Hill—They may not be. Senator FAULKNER—That is not what Mr Henderson has made absolutely clear. Senator Hill—He said that it is his job to enable the government to be able to make those decisions by the end of this year. Senator FAULKNER—His task force will have concluded its activities by the end of this year and the government will make its announcements about what it proposes to do some time after the next couple of months with not a brass razoo, not a zack, going to be spent until financial year 1998-99. So it is maximum gain and political gain and minimum pain, I suppose. Senator BOB COLLINS—Mr Henderson, you told Senator Faulkner a few months ago that you provided advice on the project analysis to the Prime Minister. Minister Hill in fact told us in answers to questions that I asked back in June that there would be rigorous analysis done of all of the projects. I would like to test how rigorous the analysis was. Presumably the department of transport provided advice as well? Mr Henderson—They did. Senator BOB COLLINS—Did the departments of Finance and Treasury provide advice? Mr Henderson—They were consulted in preparing the advice for the Prime Minister. Senator BOB COLLINS—I presume that the advice provided to the Prime Minister by Prime Minister and Cabinet in respect of the Federation Fund would have been consistent with previous advice from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on this project—that is, that essentially it would have been a negative recommendation rather than a positive one? That has certainly been previous advice from the department based on the very analysis that you said was considered. Mr Henderson—I am not aware of earlier advice from PM&C to prime ministers on this topic, but I am not in a position to discuss what our advice was to the Prime Minister. Senator BOB COLLINS—I am pursuing the same matter that Senator Faulkner pursued in terms of quantum, leaving aside whether it was positive or negative. Was it on the basis

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 352 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997 of the Prime Minister and Cabinet advice that the government concluded that $100 million was the appropriate amount of money? Mr Henderson—That was a decision by the government. I am not able to discuss what we were saying in terms of quantum or any other elements of the advice. Senator BOB COLLINS—The minister is not here at the moment, but this is essentially a question for him. From Senator Faulkner’s inquiry about quantum I had concluded that it was going to be $100 million in the sense that that is the amount of money that the governments of South Australia and the Northern Territory had pledged. I came to the conclusion that if the government was fair dinkum about the project, actually had a positive view about it, they would match that dollar for dollar and the amount would be $200 million. I then came to the conclusion that if they had no commitment to it at all in real terms, politically they could not afford to provide less than $100 million because they could not be seen to be offering less than the governments of South Australia and Northern Territory individually. That would be very foolish indeed. I presume the basis of the real analysis of the $100 million was that it simply matched the commitments that had been given by the South Australian and Northern Territory governments. Is that correct? Senator Hill—No. Senator BOB COLLINS—Fine, we are making progress. So the $100 million was based on some analysis, that you referred to would be done in June, indicating that that was the appropriate amount of money that the project required from the Commonwealth? Senator Hill—As you know, there are differing views on what public contribution was necessary to make the project work. Our judgment in the end was that it could work with $100 million from the Commonwealth added to what the states had committed to contribute. Senator BOB COLLINS—In terms of that advice, I am also aware that, if the central agencies had in fact provided advice to the Prime Minister that the railway be supported, it would have been a real road to Damascus job on the part of all of them. My experience was that, if you mentioned the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line to anyone from the Department of Finance, they fell to the carpet and started chewing their own legs off, frothing at the mouth whilst doing so. But that may have all changed. Senator Hill—I think there is still some sort of east coast cynicism in relation to this project. Senator BOB COLLINS—I think that is probably right. Mr Henderson, you have already told us that the total amount of money that will be expended in the first year of expenditure will be $100 million, going up to $200 million then $300 million. The $100 million, and the Prime Minister made this absolutely clear, was conditional. In fact, there were two quite substantive conditions placed on it. Firstly, it obviously was conditional on the project starting. Secondly, it also had the caveat placed on it, and I have no doubt where that came from, that it would be the only contribution that the federal government would make. In other words, there would be no in-kind contribution in addition to that in terms of tax breaks and infrastructure bonds or whatever. They were the two conditions placed on it. The South Australian and Northern Territory governments jointly chose this project as their centenary project, a decision, I might add, that I supported and still support. I want to make that clear. But the obvious concern I have is that it is no state secret that there is not the slightest sign that this project is going to emerge at all in the foreseeable future. That has been the situation for the last century, so that is not exactly fast breaking news. Senator Hill—That is not my information.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 353

Senator BOB COLLINS—No, but it is mine, Minister. I am asserting that. Senator Hill—I am very disappointed to hear that, because the last information I had was very positive. Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, that is right. I continually get the same positive information that you do and it always turns out to be nonsense at the end of the day. In fact, I can recall, without even straining my brain, three front-page headlines in the last four or five years in the Northern Territory News all predicting that the railway was going to be proceeding the week after. It has never happened yet. But in terms of referring to recent press reports, and this is in the public domain, there already has been speculation, understandable I would have thought, that—because this link is essentially a link between Australia and the Asian region, and because there has been an enormous amount of publicity given to the fact that the Asian tigers that we have been talking about and that many conservative politicians have been saying Australia should ‘ape’, have been fitted out with false teeth for quite some time—that is clearly not going to encourage investors that might put money into this railway link. Indeed, it is a fact, Minister, as I am sure you would be aware, that the only substantial north-bound freight task that we currently have in the Northern Territory, which is live cattle, has taken, I am sad to say, a severe battering already as a result of the problems. I must say that I am sure you have a joint interest in this. What will be the situation, Mr Henderson, as far as the department is concerned, when the decisions that Senator Faulkner pursued are taken—and they will have to be if this is going to be spent in some orderly and productive fashion—and there is no project? What happens then to the Northern Territory and South Australian share of the Federation Fund? Do we get nothing? Senator Hill—That is a very depressing scenario if I might say, Senator. Senator BOB COLLINS—Frankly, Minister, it is. It has simply been the situation since Federation. Senator Hill—Your government and my state government have been arguing for years that a commitment by the Commonwealth is what is necessary so that an aggregate sum can be included in the bids from the private sector. They have that now. The last information I have is that there have been very positive responses. I am happy to get some further details on that. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you. Minister, I am glad you have mentioned those commitments because you are quite right. The problem with the miserly $100 million— Senator Hill—If the bids have not come in yet, why do you want to start talking it down? Senator BOB COLLINS—I was anticipating that piece of nonsense from you, Minister. That is rubbish. I will not bother referring you to the press that has already been around. Senator Hill—I wonder why we try. Senator NEAL—You do not look very shocked though. Senator Hill—I am shocked and disappointed. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, leaving all the humbug aside, just temporarily if you don’t mind, I am asking these questions as you are well aware in the interests of both the Northern Territory and South Australia, not to their detriment, as is obvious to anyone who is listening. I hope the project goes ahead. I do not want to refer you to the thousands of public statements I have put out over the years and my maiden speech—sorry, first speech; I will be in trouble with Senator Margetts again—in the parliament, et cetera. I of course hope the

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 354 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997 project goes ahead. But I guess I have been a little closer to it than you have, Minister, in the sense that I have been told as a matter of fact on about 50 occasions now over the last decade that it was about to happen and it never has. All I am saying is this, Minister, and I want an answer to it, if you can leave the humbug aside: what I am concerned about is if the unthinkable should happen and if the century should finish and, as has happened so far, there is no railway and if, as we know, in order to get an orderly expenditure of this funding on projects that will work decisions have to be concluded at some time, and there is still no project—and as to this time there is not—does this mean that, having taken the decision to list this as the Federation project, if there is no project, there will be no allocation from the Federation Fund for the state of South Australia or the Northern Territory? That is the question. Senator Hill—The contribution to this project is taken into account in the whole. If the money is spent, the money is still there. That is one of the assurances the Prime Minister got. I presume that, in those circumstances, the state of South Australia and the Northern Territory would come back with an alternative bid. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you. I wanted it on the record. Senator Hill—I do not want you to misinterpret what I have said. The point is that there are at least three signs now that I know of that can give much greater confidence that the project will go ahead. The first is obviously the now committed public contribution of money. Secondly, there is the fact that all the environmental assessments have now been completed. Thirdly, there is the progress in acquiring the corridor. Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes. None of that is news, Minister. Senator Hill—No, but it is what has been happening in the last few years. Senator BOB COLLINS—As transport minister I provided the $6 million that was required to finish the surveying. Senator Hill—That is right. It took a fair bit of persuasion for you to put the last amount in I can remember. Senator BOB COLLINS—Not half as much as it took me to persuade cabinet to support it. Senator Hill—You did. Senator BOB COLLINS—Believe me! Senator Hill—It wouldn’t be so negative. Senator BOB COLLINS—It was at that point that Finance officers fell to the floor and started chewing their legs off after we said, ‘Yes,’ to it. Senator Hill—I think we should get a report on the timetable for private sector bids and so on. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, in terms of the analysis that you have just talked about, the facts are—and this is the difficulty—that, in terms of the quantum, all of those analyses have been remarkably consistent over the years. It is a fact that they have. The Northern Territory government is on the public record this year as saying it. The amount of money that was being looked to the Commonwealth for was around $300 million—and this is roughly a third of that—in terms of making the project, to quote the Northern Territory government, ‘bankable.’ This is one-third of that amount of money. Indeed, as somebody said at the time,

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 355 this might be enough money to get the project into trouble and not enough money to get it out. Senator Hill—What are you saying? Senator BOB COLLINS—What I am saying, Minister, with respect, is that your assertion that the $100 million was based on analysis and so on, from my perspective cannot be correct, because I have seen every piece of work done inside and outside government on this project that there is around. As I say, the interesting thing about it, is that in terms of Treasury and Finance, their conclusions on it were very similar to the independent reports and analysis of it. That left the gap at around $300 million. In fact $300 million to $400 million. If you want to quote the minister for the railway in the Northern Territory this year, Mr Coulter, he said, in fact, to make the project comfortable it would be closer to $500 million. What I was looking for, Minister— Senator Hill—But you cannot blame them for putting in an ambit claim, can you? Senator BOB COLLINS—Of course, I know it is an ambit claim. Senator Hill—The question is what was our assessment of what was necessary to make it work and this was our assessment. The only thing that has happened since has been the economic difficulties to our north, but I do not think that is going to affect the long-term viability. Senator BOB COLLINS—I hope it doesn’t. But what I wanted on the public record, and I would have thought you would have been as enthusiastic as I am in at least getting it there, is that as much as I want to see this project go ahead—and I cannot put that strongly enough— if there should be a negative response, at least in the period between now and when the final decisions are taken for the orderly disposition of this money across the whole country, I assume that at the worst the quantum would remain in terms of these allocations. If the project was not there to fund, the state of South Australia and the Northern Territory would at least have the opportunity of providing some worthwhile suggestions to the federal government in respect of the allocation of the same $100 million. That is what I am looking for. Would you give that assurance? Senator Hill—I am sure that that is correct, but I do not want you to misinterpret what I am saying. Senator BOB COLLINS—No, Minister, but with the greatest respect, that is all that I was looking for. Senator Hill—Okay. Senator BOB COLLINS—I find it encouraging that a minister of your seniority in the government— Senator Hill—I can assure you that South Australia and the Northern Territory will get their share of this money. I have an interest in that. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you, I cannot ask for better than that, Minister. That is what I wanted. Thank you. One thing I am curious about before you go. Senator Hill—I am not going anywhere. I think they wanted you to go somewhere. Senator BOB COLLINS—I thought we were winding up. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet provided answers to my colleague, Senator Faulkner, and he is now gone, for money in respect of public relations contracts to the government, which I read earlier today. It is the answer to question No. 814, Minister, which you have provided us. In respect of

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 356 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997 question No. 814 and the answer that has been given, a company, Hill and Knowlton, is listed as being funded to undertake work for the government. It says here—I think it is a $40,000 contract—and I quote: ‘Hill and Knowlton Pty Ltd undertake research for three public seance and merit protection teams.’ I am just wondering why the federal government was funding public seances. Is it to contact dear departed members of former governments for policy advice? Senator Hill—I think Senator Faulkner has already had this discussion with us, Senator Collins. Senator BOB COLLINS—Oh, has he? Fine. I did fax it through to him. I was hoping he would have got an answer on it. Thank you. Mr Chairman, I do not have any more questions on the Federation Fund. CHAIR—Minister, we had agreed previously that we were trying to get rid of the general programs, and apart from your questions on the Federation Fund now, and then apart from the status of women, any other questions were to be put on notice so that we can then move on and finish the status of women by 7 o’clock, break for dinner, then resume at 8 o’clock on the ATSIC programs. Senator BOB COLLINS—Could you advise me, Mr Chairman, that being so, when I would have an opportunity to ask some questions in respect of the Office of Indigenous Affairs that is part of Prime Minister and Cabinet rather than ATSIC? CHAIR—Senator, do you have many questions on that? Senator BOB COLLINS—No, I don’t have many. Senator NEAL—I would not mind doing the Federation Fund. CHAIR—Do the Federation Fund now, please. Senator BOB COLLINS—Are you indicating to me, Mr Chairman, that I should remain and get those off. Senator Hill—I thought that in the past we did that in conjunction with ATSIC. Senator BOB COLLINS—That is the reason I raised it, Minister. Even though it is part of Prime Minister and Cabinet there have been arrangements made to do that. CHAIR—Perhaps when we are doing ATSIC later, can someone from PM&C come back? We do that after dinner perhaps. Senator Neal, please ask your questions on the Federation Fund. Senator NEAL—Mr Henderson, last time we spoke I asked if I could have the list of projects under the Federation Fund. You took that request on notice and I have not received your response. Mr Henderson—The projects that have been approved? Senator NEAL—No, projects that were applied for. Mr Henderson—I will just have to check. It is my understanding that an answer was provided. Yes, we did. Senator NEAL—You also said that you believe that the decisions would be made on the applications during this year; that was your estimate, to be fair. Do you think that estimate is still accurate? Senator Hill—The officer has said already that all the assessments will be before government before the end of this calendar year.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 357

Senator NEAL—I wasn’t here when that statement was made. Senator Hill—Government will then make the determinations according to its timetable. I think it is our objective to get on with the process as quickly as possible. Senator NEAL—That is what we heard last time. Senator Hill—The bids had to all come in. That has happened. That time has closed, as I understand it. The assessments will be now before government within the next month and a half. Senator NEAL—On the last occasion I was here, I was informed that all submissions had now been received. There were some states that had been late but you had received final submissions by sometime early in July for all of them. Why was it that the Commonwealth considered it fit to now ask the New South Wales government to revise their submission, some four months later? Mr Henderson—I previously informed you that the initial responses from all jurisdictions had been received or were imminent. Senator NEAL—No, you said that all final ones had been received. Mr Henderson—All right. They had all been received. We gave those submissions preliminary consideration and there has been a second round of inquiries made at officials level seeking further advice from jurisdictions with more detail in general about their highest priority projects. So the situation you refer to about New South Wales is not unique to New South Wales. Senator NEAL—I am not saying it is unique. They were not just asked for more detail; they were asked to revise their application. Why was that? Mr Henderson—To revise? Senator NEAL—Yes. To change their priorities. Mr Henderson—We are not in a position to tell them to change their priorities; we are in a position to indicate the reaction of the Commonwealth government to their priorities. These decisions are being made in consultation with the states. It is a matter of judgment for the Commonwealth in the finish. Senator NEAL—But the question I asked you was, why was New South Wales asked to revise their priorities in their application? You said it was because you were advising them of the preliminary approach of the Commonwealth. Does that mean that the Commonwealth did not like the priorities that were provided by New South Wales? Senator Hill—Don’t look at me—I don’t know anything about it. Why don’t I take it on notice and get a proper reply? Senator NEAL—I would rather the officer answered. Senator Hill—If it is a matter of government policy, in effect, I would prefer to give the answer, and I do not know the answer, so I would like to take it on notice. Senator NEAL—It is not actually a policy question. Obviously New South Wales— Senator Hill—I do not understand it, because these projects are being worked up in cooperation between the states and the Commonwealth. It seems to be working well everywhere else. Senator NEAL—That may be because New South Wales is the only Labor state. It is not very hard to see what the difference is between New South Wales and the other states.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 358 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator Hill—I do not quite know what you mean by that. Well, I know what you mean, but I do not know how that would affect this process. Senator NEAL—New South Wales has been contacted and asked to revise their application. Senator Hill—Contacted by whom? Senator NEAL—By the Commonwealth department. Would you be the person liaising with the Premier’s Department, Mr Henderson? Mr Henderson—Yes; not personally, but I described earlier that we have a Federation Fund task force and they have been consulting. I have had at least one phone conversation with a New South Wales official. Senator NEAL—So you have spoken to Mr Loxton? Mr Henderson—I do not recall speaking to Mr Loxton. I do recall speaking to Dr Gellatly. Senator Hill—So what was New South Wales told? Senator NEAL—That the Commonwealth did not like its priorities and that they would be well advised to change them. I suppose nothing indicated what would flow from that, but I suppose the indication is that if they did not change their priorities they would not be looked on favourably. Senator Hill—What were their priorities? Senator NEAL—The first two priorities—and that was what I was going to ask—are the international garden festival, first priority; and, secondly, the Parkes airport. What I would like to ask is this: is there an indication that those two items are not looked on favourably by the Commonwealth? Senator Hill—I think I would still like to get some formal advice and give you a more authoritative answer. Senator NEAL—Every time you take anything on notice, I get a letter saying I will get no response. That is why I am a little bit loath to leave it at that. Senator Hill—You could have given me a call yesterday and I would have had it for you today. Senator NEAL—But they know I am interested in this matter, since I have raised it on every occasion for the last two, so I do not think it is a big surprise. Senator Hill—Well, I did not know there was any difficulty with New South Wales. Senator NEAL—But my interest in the garden festival has been indicated before. Senator Hill—I think we are all interested in the garden festival. You see, we set out various criteria. Whether it is argued that they do not fall within those criteria, I do not know. That is what I would like to find out. Senator NEAL—Maybe Mr Henderson could tell us. Senator Hill—The scheme is a cooperative scheme; it is not a contest. I will take instructions for a moment. As I suspected, there have been concerns about whether the bid fitted the criteria. One of the aspects was that we wanted long-term benefit to flow from these investments, in effect. That is why it was a Federation Fund to provide some long-term benefit to mark the achievements to date and to set the field for the future. The issue of funding a one-off garden

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 359 festival, on the face of it, did not seem to fall within that. The festival comes and the festival goes. That is one aspect. Secondly, there have been ongoing negotiations about funding support for other sources for the garden festival. It is in that context that I have known a bit about it. But the bottom line is that it is a consultative process. That consultation has been taking place at official level. If there are some problems with that, perhaps we can elevate it to a political level. We want to work something out with the New South Wales government that will please both of us, basically. Senator NEAL—The problem with the garden festival seems to have been that the bureaucracy represented by the Department of Tourism has been absolutely and adamantly opposed to this garden festival since its conception. They have continued to oppose it at all stages and steps. Have you received advice from the Department of Tourism on the garden festival which is very negative? Is this the basis for the concern about the priorities? Mr Henderson—There needs to be a distinction drawn between the Gosford garden festival project in its own right as an international event and the Federation Fund. Putting to one side the Federation Fund issue, the issue is whether there has been comparable Commonwealth support for international exhibitions in Australia, such as for Expo 1988 in Brisbane. Senator NEAL—That is the argument that Tourism has been putting up. Before we go on to what is in the advice, can you confirm whether you have sought the advice of the Department of Tourism on the garden festival? Senator Hill—As it relates to a Federation Fund project? Senator NEAL—Yes. Mr Henderson—We probably have. But, in that other context, we already had quite a deal of advice. Senator NEAL—In what other context? Mr Henderson—In relation to the issue of comparability between the Queensland Expo 88 and the Queensland bid for an exhibition in 2002 and how that related to the government’s position towards the New South Wales request for assistance for the Gosford garden festival. Senator NEAL—The government supported Brisbane and did not support New South Wales. I have already had that advice from Tourism. It is not a matter of debate. Senator Hill—I have been involved in discussions about the Gosford garden festival at government level, and they have all been positive. The difficulties I have heard—you are taking me back a bit now—are that there is another international garden festival that is pretty much competing with it in the timetable. Senator NEAL—No, there is not. Senator Hill—Perhaps I am mistaken. My recollection is that there is. That was one of the problems. Secondly, there needed to be an underwriting, as I recall it, by the New South Wales government. Senator NEAL—It is no longer required. That is an issue that the Department of Tourism has raised. I am interested in finding out whether the views of the Department of Tourism are affecting the Federation Fund response to the first priority. Senator Hill—My answer is that officials have said to New South Wales officials that it does not seem to come within the particular criteria that were set and which required a long- term benefit.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 360 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator NEAL—When you spoke to the Premier’s office in New South Wales—I do not know whether it was you personally—you were asked to put your concerns in writing so that it would be clear exactly what the problems were. No response has been forthcoming in writing. Why is that? Mr Henderson—I am not aware of the conversations in which those observations were made. Both Mr Moore-Wilton and I have written to some jurisdictions seeking additional information or elaboration. The initial advice provided on Federation Fund recommended projects—quite deliberately—was not intended to be sufficient to provide the basis for final selections. It was a preliminary indication of the projects. We are now going back to seek more detail so that we are in a position to put detailed information before government on which they would be comfortable about making final selections. Senator NEAL—Have you written to New South Wales about that request or have you only had informal discussions with them on the phone? Mr Henderson—I cannot recall whether we have written to New South Wales, but two staff from the Federation Fund task force were in Sydney on Monday consulting staff from the New South Wales Premier’s Department. Senator NEAL—When is the additional information or revised application required to be submitted by New South Wales? Mr Henderson—As soon as possible, no precise date— Senator NEAL—Was set. Mr Henderson—I should elaborate on that answer. New South Wales is aware that the task force is working to a timetable that will have the information before cabinet so that cabinet is in a position to finalise selections this calendar year. So New South Wales knows the timetable we are working to. Senator NEAL—Would it be correct to say that the Commonwealth response to the first two priorities of the New South Wales application is less than enthusiastic? Senator Hill—We have already heard specific reservations about the garden festival. Senator NEAL—What about the Parkes airport? Mr Henderson—I am not in a position— Senator Hill—I must say that I do not think the government had in mind contributing to the funding of airports. But I guess we have contributed to the funding of a railway, haven’t we? Senator NEAL—Exactly. Senator Hill—Parkes airport is for freight transport, isn’t it? Mr Henderson—Yes. Senator NEAL—Yes, for agricultural freight. When do you need the information by, roughly? If it has to be decided by the end of the year, I assume there must be some period over Christmas where it is not going to happen— Mr Henderson—We really need their advice in the next couple of weeks. Senator NEAL—Could you take on notice my question about whether you have written to New South Wales seeking further information? Mr Henderson—Yes.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 361

Senator NEAL—Because, frankly, there seems to be some uncertainty about exactly what is required and some misunderstanding about what the intention of the request is. Mr Henderson—I indicated that two officers from the task force had a meeting with at least two New South Wales Premier’s Department officials working on this matter on Monday. I do not know exactly how long the meeting went for. But it was not a 15-minute meeting, it was an extended meeting. Senator Hill—Perhaps the problems have been resolved. But let us push on with it. You seem to be trying to create a contest when there is not one. There appear to be some communication difficulties. If that is right, let us overcome them. Senator NEAL—The garden festival is something that has been opposed at every opportunity, but it is of great importance to New South Wales in general and to the central coast area in particular. If there is a problem with the Federation Fund, then it is not clear from the communication to date as to exactly what the problem is. If there were something in writing, it would certainly be easier to deal with. Mr Henderson—You say the garden festival was opposed? Senator NEAL—Yes. Mr Henderson—Decisions in the Federation Fund context have not been finalised— Senator NEAL—I know—I meant as a more general issue. It was not really a question; it was just my view of the situation. Senator Hill—But I do not think that is right. We do not oppose the garden festival. I have already worked out ways in which we could achieve a very useful environmental outcome, I have to say. Senator NEAL—We would seek that as well. That is probably as much as I can fruitfully ask you. [6.35 p.m.] Subprogram 1.2.2—Status of women Senator NEAL—We do not have the pleasure of Pru Goward today? Ms Nairn—No, I am sorry. There was a launch in Melbourne earlier today that she had to attend. Senator NEAL—She could not get back in time from Melbourne? Ms Nairn—No. I imagine she will be back by now but, given that we were not sure what was happening— Senator NEAL—Do I take it as an indication that she did not enjoy last time? Senator Hill—No, you should not. Senator NEAL—Just before we go on, I assume Senator Newman is not attending today? Senator Hill—She has a commitment outside of the building at this time as well. Senator NEAL—Does she still represent and is responsible for the Status of Women portfolio in the Senate? Senator Hill—We think she is now more directly responsible and we will be having further discussions with her—directly responsible in that we now have a Minister for the Status of Women whom she represents.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 362 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator NEAL—Maybe we could start there, because you have had a change of minister since the last time we spoke. You are still within PM&C; is that right? Ms Nairn—That is right. Senator NEAL—Whom do you actually take instructions from—Judi Moylan or the Prime Minister? Ms Nairn—In a day-to-day sense, it is mostly from the minister, Judi Moylan. Senator NEAL—Is that in all cases or do you seek instruction from the Prime Minister in special circumstances? Ms Nairn—We still brief the Prime Minister when it is required. Senator NEAL—Only on request or on a regular basis? Ms Nairn—No, the contact we have with him and his office is fairly regular. Senator NEAL—But do you wait until you get a call from his office saying, ‘We want to be briefed on this issue,’ or do you have an arrangement where you brief him once a week or once a month? Ms Nairn—It is usually as the issues arise rather than at a particular formatted time. Senator NEAL—So it is on call? Ms Nairn—Yes, that seems to be more useful. Senator NEAL—In response to some questions that you took on notice last time, you said that as of 28 August 1997 there were two positions temporarily vacant in the office—an ASO6 and an ASO3. Are they still vacant? Ms Nairn—The ASO3 certainly is. I am just trying to remember which one the ASO6 is. Senator NEAL—It does not actually tell me in the answer or I would tell you. Ms Nairn—Did we attach the duty statements to that? They would help. There is still an ASO6 position that is vacant, although we transferred an officer to that particular one from August. Senator NEAL—Is that Senior Officer Grade C? Ms Nairn—That is one above a six. Senator NEAL—So that is not the position? Ms Nairn—If you have got a SOGC duty statement there, you should have an ASO6 duty statement. Senator NEAL—Is the ASO6 position an administrative position? Ms Nairn—Largely, there is some policy work involved. Senator NEAL—You do not know whether it is vacant or not? Ms Nairn—No, I do know that it is vacant. At the end of August that particular ASO6 position was vacant. We had another ASO6 officer in the department. That particular ASO6 position was in the domestic violence area. We deemed that it was more urgent to fill that position, so we transferred someone from another section within the division to that position. So we still have a vacant ASO6 position, but it is a different position. Senator NEAL—So what is the position that is vacant? What policy areas would that position normally deal with if it were filled? Ms Nairn—It is not vacant, I am sorry.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 363

Ms Ranieri—It has been temporarily filled. Senator NEAL—By whom? Ms Ranieri—By an internal officer of the department. Senator NEAL—And which area does it deal with? Ms Ranieri—Workplace diversity and community liaison. Senator NEAL—Last time I asked about a number of groups that had not been funded. One of them was the Women in Film and Television Sydney film centre. You advised them to talk to the Department of Communications and the Arts about getting funding from them. Do you know if they were successful? Ms Nairn—I do not know, I am sorry. Senator NEAL—Did you do any follow-up of all the groups you told under the mainstreaming concept to go and see another department? Have you done any follow-up to see if they ever actually got funded? Ms Nairn—Not subsequent to the ones that were announced on 3 July—that was when I think the announcement was made about the funding. There was a group that were receiving funding from other departments. Senator NEAL—I think we were aware of them when we last saw each other. Ms Nairn—That is right. We have not followed up any of the other groups. Senator NEAL—Do you intend to do that? Ms Nairn—We will not necessarily do it systematically. We will hear about some groups as they talk to us, say, at the round table. We just do not have the resources to do it systematically for every group that applied for funding. Senator NEAL—It would only take a letter, wouldn’t it? Ms Nairn—A letter to every organisation that was unsuccessful would mean about 30 letters. Senator NEAL—But not all of them would have been referred to another department. I do not think 30 letters is a great deal; is it? I do 30 letters a day easily out of my office and I have fewer staff than you have. Ms Nairn—If we are to follow them up seriously, there is quite a bit of work involved and then what are we achieving? Senator NEAL—You find out whether or not they have got funding. The whole idea of the policy change was that they did not get policy funding out of OSW, they got it out of another department that more closely aligned to their particular interests. So obviously for the policy to be effective, you need to know that they got funding. If you do not know, you do not know whether or not your policy worked. Ms Nairn—We know that some have got funding. Senator NEAL—I will write to them myself, I suppose. I am sure my office can manage to stretch itself to write 30 letters. Senator Hill—I think we should be able to get you that information. Don’t you think? Ms Nairn—If you say so, Minister. Senator Hill—I do, yes.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 364 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator NEAL—There were a number of organisations that you responded to in that way. One of the organisations was told it had to be a more representative national organisation. I have had some contact with a group known as the Women’s Action Alliance, which has been funded this year for the first time. How many members does the Women’s Action Alliance have? Ms Nairn—I would have to take that on notice; I do not know off the top of my head. Senator NEAL—Maybe I will ask a more general question. To be representative enough to be funded, what sort of membership do you think an organisation should have in rough terms? Ms Nairn—It would also depend on the distribution in states and what sort of group it is likely to represent. For example, Women with Disabilities would be drawing on a smaller group of women, so you would not expect it to have such a large membership compared with, say, the YWCA, which is a much more diverse organisation. Senator NEAL—Would you think it normal to fund an organisation with fewer than 500 members? Is that national enough? Ms Nairn—Although we are interested in the number of members—we put some store by it and the distribution across states to judge whether or not an organisation is national—we do not ask them to document their membership records in a lot of great detail. Senator NEAL—But you actually ask them how many members they have, don’t you? Ms Nairn—We do. It is helpful if they can give us an indication of that. Senator NEAL—Maybe I will ask it this way. I do not really need to know which organisation has which membership, but maybe you could give me a list of how much membership each group that was funded had. Ms Nairn—That is based on the information they supply us. Senator NEAL—Yes, of course. Ms Nairn—We have not sought to verify that information. Senator NEAL—Assuming you have not audited what they have told you. Ms Nairn—Yes, that is right. Senator NEAL—On the last occasion we had some discussion about research projects. Could I be provided again with a list of research projects that have been funded to date this year? What format do you have that in? Ms Nairn—We probably have something that is close to that. We actually provided some information in response to a question from Senator Ray quite recently. Senator NEAL—I am not sure whether I received that. Senator Hill—I think we have a spare copy of it. We will table it. Senator NEAL—I think you have given me projects approved since May. I assume that was up until the date of the last estimates. Ms Nairn—That is right, yes. Senator NEAL—So I assume this list is from then until now. Ms Nairn—It would overlap a bit. Senator NEAL—These are all the consultancies and research. Ms Nairn—Just the research, it is not—

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 365

Senator NEAL—Do you remember that last time we had a discussion about a person employed on a consultancy basis as Pru Goward’s media adviser? Ms Nairn—Yes. Senator NEAL—What was her name? Ms Nairn—Marilyn Chalkley. Senator NEAL—Is she still employed? Ms Nairn—No, her contract finished quite some time ago. Senator NEAL—I think it was shortly after our last discussion. Ms Nairn—I think it was before that last discussion. Senator NEAL—Was it? Ms Nairn—Yes, well before. I am sure she was only employed until about the end of May. She is certainly not in this financial year. Senator NEAL—I just remember that last time you had a figure which showed her wages up to a certain day in May, but her contract was ongoing so you were not able to tell us how much was actually spent because you had not rendered an account. Maybe I am confusing that with the first estimates. Ms Nairn—We have given you the final figure of how much Marilyn was paid. We can provide it again, if you like. Senator NEAL—It is not necessary for you to provide it. It is a bit hard to tell from the way you have set this out. Your original table format was a lot better. You have put the subject of the research and the person who is preparing it separately. So we do not know how much each piece of research has cost. Ms Nairn—It is in the same order on all occasions. So the first one relates to ‘community solutions’ and then there is the amount. Senator Hill—I do not think we have done it to deliberately make it difficult. Senator NEAL—I know, but it would be easier if it were done differently. The first table was very easy to understand, and I appreciated it. Do you remember the first table that you provided? It is just easier if you have the period that the research covers, the type of research it is, the person who is doing it and the amount it costs. It makes it much easier rather than to try— Ms Nairn—Do you want us to do that for you again? Senator NEAL—Yes. I will be able to work this out now, but I am saying that in the future I would appreciate it if you could do them in that format. Ms Nairn—And you just want it updated? The last time we did it for you, we did it from May until the end of June. Do you want it from June until now? Senator NEAL—A cumulative one for the whole year would be helpful. Ms Nairn—Financial or calendar? Senator NEAL—For the calendar year, please. Are there any funds left that are unexpended that are available for research? Ms Nairn—Yes, there would be because it is funded on the financial year. They are unexpended, but we have plans to expend them this financial year.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 366 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator NEAL—So when you say ‘plans’, is it vague plans as in, ‘We would like to spend it on women before the end of the year,’ or have you actually determined what sorts of projects you wish to do? Ms Nairn—No, we have determined the projects. In some cases we are settling the nature of the projects with other departments because we hope they will be cooperative research projects. Sometimes we have defined it fairly clearly, and we might be searching for an appropriate researcher to do it and organising the tender process for that. Senator NEAL—So what are the projects that are not going to be in the list because they are not completed yet but you would intend to do before the end of the financial year? Ms Nairn—I would be able to give you the broad areas that we would be looking at, but I could not necessarily give you much more than that. Senator NEAL—What are the broad areas? Ms Nairn—I would have to take that on notice. Senator NEAL—These issues were raised last time when I asked exactly the same sorts of questions. I got exactly the same response—that you did not have the information with you. I asked whether next time we could have the information available. You know the sorts of questions we are going to ask, so why is it that we never have the answers? Ms Nairn—This is a slight variation on the question you asked last time, or at least that is how I interpret it. You are asking for projected research. Senator NEAL—Next time, on every occasion I will ask you what you have expended on research, the details of it and what you intend to expend for the rest of the year. If you have not expended the full budget, I will ask why you have not. I will ask that every time I see you. Senator Hill—We will be fully prepared for it next time. Senator NEAL—In all these research projects that you provided for me, was the selection of the person to carry out the research done by tender? Ms Nairn—In some cases I would assume—and I was not in the division for them all—that they were done by selective tender. Perhaps we even went to researchers whom we knew had expertise on particular issues. I would not think that full open tenders were run for all of them. Senator NEAL—Maybe on the full table that you do you can also say whether they were tendered and whether it was an open tender, a select tender or some other process. There are two papers here which have been prepared: ‘Women’s participation on Commonwealth and private sector boards’ and ‘Women in public and private sector senior management’. Could I be provided with copies of those? Ms Nairn—Yes. There is no problem with that. Senator NEAL—Also there is a detailed research on women in small business. The research you are doing about the existence of violence in a relationship and its correlation with the economic outcomes for women post separation or divorce, when is that likely to be available? Ms Nairn—I will try to find out which one it is; they are called slightly different things. We do not have an end date for that. The first payment was made in September. Senator NEAL—So you do not know when the results of the project are likely to come out? Ms Nairn—I assume it has some expected finalisation date, but it is not in this briefing. Senator NEAL—Who supervises the research projects within the office?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 367

Ms Nairn—They are supervised by different sections in OSW. Senator NEAL—So no-one has the overall responsibility for checking on them? It seems to me, if I were running an office, spending money outside the office, I would want to keep my fingers on it. Is no-one responsible for that? Ms Ranieri—Project officers do have a monitoring role. Senator NEAL—But no-one within the upper echelons of the office plays any role in overseeing that? Ms Nairn—The relevant branch head does and the FAS does, yes. Senator NEAL—The who? Ms Nairn—The First Assistant Secretary. Senator NEAL—I only deal in whole words. The supervision on the project seems to be a little vague. Ms Nairn—Just because it is not in this particular briefing does not mean the supervision is not adequate. Senator Hill—Did you want a report on any particular project, Senator? Senator NEAL—I have asked already for a run-down of them. Who is the principal of community solutions? Ms Nairn—I do not know off hand. Senator NEAL—You might want to take that on notice too. I asked you last time, within the Department of Health and Family Services there has been a mainstreaming of public health, which includes women’s health. Were you asked to give any advice about the issue of including women’s health within the public health funding for states? Ms Nairn—That decision, I think, predates my arrival in OSW. So I do not know whether we gave any advice. We would have to take that on notice. Senator NEAL—You have not given any advice since you have been there? Ms Nairn—No. Senator NEAL—Maybe just confirm that. I asked you in vague terms last time about whether you would provide any advice in relation to cuts to legal aid and the effect it might have on women. As I recall, your answer was no. Is that still the same? Have you given any advice to the Attorney-General’s Department about the effect of legal aid cuts on women? Ms Nairn—We would not advise the Attorney-General’s Department. We advise the Prime Minister or the Minister for the Status of Women. Senator NEAL—Have you provided advice to either of those two people about the effect of legal aid cuts on women? Ms Nairn—In what period? Senator NEAL—Since you have been here. Ms Nairn—Since I have been in the office? Senator NEAL—You have been here since the beginning of the year, have you not? Ms Nairn—Since about April. Senator NEAL—Since April, have you provided any advice on the issue?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 368 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Ms Nairn—Not that I am aware of, but I would not necessarily be the person that the briefing goes through. We can find that out for you. Senator NEAL—Who would it go through? Ms Nairn—The FAS signs the advice off. CHAIR—Senator, do you want to put further questions on notice? Senator NEAL—I do not have much more. As usual, I am unhappy with the level of information available. Senator Hill—Why do we not do the status of women first next time? Senator NEAL—What a great idea. CHAIR—Fair enough. Sitting suspended from 7.00 p.m. to 8.09 p.m. [8.09 p.m.] Subprogram 1.2.3—Indigenous Affairs Senator BOB COLLINS—In the Senate yesterday the minister said that he had asked OIA during September to inquire informally of members of the current reconciliation council which of them would be willing to continue or be interested in continuing to serve during its third and, I would add, final term. He went on to say: Although not strictly necessary, the purpose of this exercise was to determine the minimum number of new members who would be required. Did the OIA actually do that? Mr Vaughan—Yes, we did. Senator BOB COLLINS—Can you tell me—I obviously do not want the names of the people concerned—how many members indicated that it was their intention to continue? Mr Vaughan—From recollection— Senator BOB COLLINS—I will not press you to be entirely accurate, Mr Vaughan. Senator Herron—I will interpolate that there are a few that would go and there are three others who have asked to go but would be prepared to stay. I do not know whether Peter wants to— Senator BOB COLLINS—Does anyone want to add anything to that? Mr Vaughan—I think that covers the matter. Senator BOB COLLINS—At that time did the chair and deputy chair give any indication during that round that they were considering at that point leaving the council—in the discussions you had? Mr Vaughan—We did not canvass the chair and the deputy chair, because they were having discussions directly with the minister and the P.M. Senator BOB COLLINS—So your inquiries were directed to other members of the— Mr Vaughan—Other members. Senator BOB COLLINS—At what stage did your office become aware that the chair and deputy chair had decided not to seek reappointment? Mr Vaughan—The day they sent their letters.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 369

Senator BOB COLLINS—Was OIA asked to provide any suggestions as to possible replacements for those two positions? Mr Vaughan—I think that there you are going into questions about our advice to the minister— Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, I am. Mr Vaughan—Which we do not normally canvass. Senator BOB COLLINS—That does not stop me asking the question. Mr Vaughan—No. Senator BOB COLLINS—Obviously it is open to the minister to leap in at any time and add anything he wants to. Senator Herron—I have nothing to hide, Senator Collins. It is on the public record. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, you would obviously agree that, considering the quite unique role of this council, it is absolutely crucial in terms of it achieving anything to get broad consensus and bipartisan support—and certainly to get the support of the Aboriginal community in particular in terms of its operations? Senator Herron—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—I am concerned in that regard to note the comments that have been made by the ATSIC Commissioner for North Queensland—that is in fact the relevant ATSIC area in respect of the nominee for the head of the organisation, Evelyn Scott—in respect of that appointment. I am obviously dismayed, since this is the final term of the body. I think it was Ray Martin, a member of the council, who said that ‘to progress this issue is like dragging the Queen Mary through treacle.’ And he is quite right about that—it is a big job. Terry O’Shane, as you know, Minister, is not only a senior member of the ATSIC council but a person with a lifetime of experience in Aboriginal affairs in that neck of the woods. I am quite sure you are aware of what he said. I will quote from the Age of yesterday in respect of this appointment: . . . Mr Terry O’Shane, Queensland commissioner of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission— who, of course, also is based in Cairns— said the Cairns-based Ms Scott did not enjoy the broad support of the indigenous community. Mr O’Shane said Ms Scott had stood unsuccessfully as a Liberal candidate for the seat of Cook and later unsuccessfully sought election to the regional ATSIC council. ‘She has not been able to receive endorsement by her own community in terms of representing their viewpoints,’ Mr O’Shane said. ‘We would have a lot of difficulty in supporting her in the position the Government has appointed her to...shewill espouse the policies of the government.’ Minister, I was involved in the discussions that led to the appointment of Mr Dodson and Mr Viner. In fact, I can tell you quite frankly that I was contacted by a number of your coalition colleagues at the time for my views on the subject, and I gave them quite freely. It is a matter of fact that those two appointments, which were a balance of experience and standing and everything else, had the full support of the then opposition. I think from memory that Mr Downer was the then leader. But they also had the absolutely unequivocal support of the Australian community. The public press gives testimony to that.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 370 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Is it a matter of concern to you that one of your own ATSIC commissioners, in fact the relevant one for North Queensland, has expressed such firm views about his concerns about the lack of support from Aboriginal Australia to the person who is going to head up the reconciliation commission? I know, Minister, that you will not interpret this—indeed, how could it be interpreted—as any sort of personal reflection on Evelyn Scott. I do not know her. To the best of my knowledge I have never met her. But the person I am quoting is Commissioner O’Shane. Senator Herron—Thank you for that. I was concerned too. I rang Mr O’Shane and asked what his concern was. He said that statement was taken of a number of things that he said about Evelyn Scott. I thought it was relevant also to inquire concerning that specific statement that Mr O’Shane made as I was interested to discover that Mr O’Shane got 112 first preference votes out of 1,881 when he stood on the first occasion for an ATSIC election. I thought it was a comment on his part which really was not relevant to whether he supported her appointment or not. He said that he did support her appointment. Senator BOB COLLINS—He did. Senator Herron—Yes, and I am happy for you to ring him to check the veracity of that. Senator BOB COLLINS—I would not question you. Senator Herron—To answer your question, yes, I was concerned as well. I also pointed out to him that Patrick Dodson, whom you know I have enormous respect for, got 19 first preference votes out of a total of 760 formal votes at the time he stood. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, with the greatest respect, does that not simply indicate the relative ease with which people get elected to the commission, which makes it even more of a point that Ms Scott could not even manage that? Senator Herron—There are many interpretations. As I say, the relevant interpretation that Terry O’Shane put on it reflected on other people as well. It is not a reflection of Evelyn Scott’s acceptability or not. There are many other qualities. She has been involved in Aboriginal affairs for over 30 years. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, I do not doubt— Senator Herron—That is the one criterion. I rang him. We box on a bit, Terry O’Shane and I, but we have a good relationship, and I talk to him as frequently as I can. I rang him after seeing that. I said, ‘What is the problem?’ I was concerned as they are in the same town. Senator BOB COLLINS—I am pleased it is on the public record. This is a press report from only yesterday. What you are telling us tonight is that, having spoken to Terry O’Shane, he has reversed the position he took yesterday. Senator Herron—No. I rang him last night because I did see that press report yesterday. I said, ‘Terry, what is this about? Do you not support Evelyn Scott?’ We probably talked for 20 minutes or so. He said that, yes, he does support her. That was one remark that he made that was highlighted in the press. I do not think he had seen that press report actually. Senator BOB COLLINS—Are you saying that Mr O’Shane told you that he was misreported by the Age? Senator Herron—No. He said that it was a correct report, but it was one of a number of things that he said. Senator BOB COLLINS—It is a fairly strong statement. The report quoted Mr O’Shane as saying:

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 371

"She has not been able to receive endorsement by her own community . . . We would have a lot of difficulty supporting her in the position the Government has appointed her to. . . She will espouse the policies of the Government." That is no longer his position? Senator Herron—That was an interpretation. It remains to be seen. Similar comments were made about the current chairman of ATSIC and I think they have been shown to be incorrect. He has been an outstanding appointment. At the time he was appointed there were similar types— Senator BOB COLLINS—From Aboriginal leadership? None that I can recall, Minister. Can you tell me which Aboriginal leader bagged him? Senator Herron—There was criticism. Senator BOB COLLINS—From the Aboriginal community? Senator Herron—I do not know whether it is on the public record. Senator BOB COLLINS—To the best of my knowledge there was not a single word of criticism on the public record. My experience with Aboriginal Australians is that they are never backward in coming forward as far as the public record is concerned. If they have a view about something they will tell you about it. Senator Herron—I would agree with that. Senator BOB COLLINS—All I can say, because this is a public forum, is that I am glad that has been clarified for obvious reasons. This is an extremely important appointment, particularly in terms of what was going on at the moment. I would have to say that I would urge Mr O’Shane to clarify the public record himself at the earliest possible opportunity. Senator Herron—I should also point out that it is a little premature because, as you know, the consultative process is not finalised. The final list has not been determined. A list of 50 names has gone to the Leader of the Opposition and the Democrats. Senator BOB COLLINS—I am aware of that and, as you know, I pointed out in the Senate yesterday that—I reiterate and support the comments made by Senator Woodley yesterday—I am not suggesting in any way that you have done nothing but follow proper process. I know you have. I point out to you again that, in the correspondence you sent out, today was the day you had given to give people an opportunity to respond—to 12 November. I must say that I am somewhat taken aback—and this now needs to be clarified—to hear you say that it is, in terms of Mr O’Shane’s clarification about Ms Scott’s suitability for the position, premature to ask him to clarify his statements because the process is not concluded. Senator Herron—I am still awaiting a response from your leader. Senator BOB COLLINS—My leader. Senator Herron—Yes and the Democrats. Senator BOB COLLINS—My leader wrote to you on 5 November. I have seen the correspondence. I had it in the Senate with me yesterday. My leader wrote to you on 5 November telling you that his preference was for the existing chairman and vice chairman to remain in their positions. Senator Herron—I am sorry. I had another letter yesterday, which I have responded to. So you are probably not up with that. Senator BOB COLLINS—I am even more confused.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 372 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator Herron—He wrote to me on 5 November. That is correct. Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, I understand that. But what you have just said is that you have not received any correspondence. You are now saying that that is not correct. Senator Herron—No, I did not say that. Senator BOB COLLINS—The Hansard will indicate you did, Minister. Senator Herron—I said that it was not finalised. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, can I just bring you back to Kim Beazley, my leader. You said 30 seconds ago that you are still waiting a response from the Leader of the Opposition. Senator Herron—From the letter that I sent to him today. He sent a letter to me yesterday, which you are not aware of. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, with respect, I am not a mind reader. Senator Herron—We are talking at cross-purposes. Senator BOB COLLINS—Only because I did not know that you had written to him yesterday. Senator Herron—I had assumed that you were aware that he wrote to me yesterday. You are obviously not. Senator BOB COLLINS—I am good but not that good. So following the letter I have seen from Mr Beazley dated 5 November you wrote to him again? Senator Herron—We had better clarify this. Senator BOB COLLINS—What you just said, Minister, was that the letter that you received from Mr Beazley yesterday was a response to a further letter you had sent him after 5 November. Senator Herron—That is correct. His letter of the 5th was to the Prime Minister. Senator BOB COLLINS—Why not just cut to the chase. Senator Herron—That is what I am trying to do. Senator BOB COLLINS—Why not just tell us what the current position is. Senator Herron—I assumed that you knew what your leader had done. Senator BOB COLLINS—Not yesterday. It is a long way from here over to the House of Representatives. Senator Herron—I acknowledge that too. Let us clarify it once and for all. Senator BOB COLLINS—Please, Minister. Senator Herron—Mr Beazley wrote to the Prime Minister on the 5th. Then Mr Beazley wrote to me yesterday. I have responded to that letter saying—and I have not got the letter with me—in broad terms that I had sent a list of 50 and I thought the reconciliation process was too important, as I said in the Senate, to make it a political football. Let us keep it on the road. I would very much like him to put nominees forward. There is a list of 50. We are trying to achieve a balance and so on. I am awaiting a response. Senator BOB COLLINS—So we are now back to where we were a minute or so ago where you said that it was too early for it to be necessary for Mr O’Shane to clarify his position on Ms Scott because the matter had not yet been concluded?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 373

Senator Herron—That is correct because it has not been finalised. Senator BOB COLLINS—I am absolutely over the moon to hear that from you, Minister. That is brand new news and a lot of people will be interested to hear that the matter is not yet resolved and that it may be resolved in some way other than is currently on the public record. I wonder whether you would explain the Prime Minister’s statement within the last week—and I can obtain it very easily in the next few minutes, but I know exactly what he said—where he categorically stated that the new chairmen of the council would be Ms Evelyn Scott and Gus Nossal and that no further correspondence would be entered into—which is a complete contradiction to what you have just told us. Senator Herron—No, it is not. You know as well as I do, because we both talked about it in the Senate, the requirements under the act. Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, I do. It is section 14(2) of the act, from memory. Senator Herron—Sections 14 to 25. For the purposes of the record, section 14(2) states: The Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and the members referred to in paragraph (1)(h) are to be appointed by the Governor-General. The preamble to that— Senator BOB COLLINS—I am familiar with the act. There is a specific section dealing with the appointment of the deputy chair and chair. That requires consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of any other party in the parliament with five or more members who are not members of the opposition. Senator Herron—That is incorrect. Senator BOB COLLINS—That is the Democrats, in other words. Senator Herron—It is consultation with all of the members of the— Senator BOB COLLINS—That is not specific to the whole council. You have it in front of you, but I know it. There are two sections dealing with this. There is the one that you have just talked about dealing with the need for consultation for the entire council. There is a separate section dealing specifically with the appointments of the chair and deputy chair. It is quite separate from the members at large. Senator Herron—That is not my interpretation. If you care to tell me— Senator BOB COLLINS—I quoted it in the debate we had on this in the Senate. Senator Herron—I do not see that. If you see that somewhere, you had better tell us where it is. Senator BOB COLLINS—In fact it was the subject of the urgency motion that Senator Woodley moved. Mr Vaughan—Perhaps I could assist. The relevant section states: Any advice to the Governor-General regarding such appointments— and that refers to all the appointments— is only to be given after the Minister has consulted: (a) the Leader of the Opposition... So that refers to appointments of the chairman, deputy chairman and the other members and not just the chair and deputy chairman. The consultation is with all of them. Senator BOB COLLINS—That does not help at all. I will come back to this. I am very conscious of time and what we have to get through tonight. I had not intended to get bogged

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 374 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997 down. The substantive matter is that you have actually said tonight—and, as I say, I am delighted to hear it—that the question of the appointment of the chair and the deputy chair is not finally resolved and that the process has not yet concluded. Therefore, the position in the statement made by the Prime Minister in the past week has altered. Senator Herron—No, I am not saying that at all. I have made it clear to you in the light of that act that it is incumbent on me only to consult with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of any non-government party in the parliament of at least five members that is not part of the opposition, and the Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Commission before recommending to the Governor-General. What I am saying is that I am still awaiting a response from the Leader of the Opposition as to his nominees. He has not given me any nominees. Senator BOB COLLINS—In the interest of time—and this will make interesting reading tomorrow—we have just been talking for 10 minutes about the statements made by Mr O’Shane, which you agree are of some concern, which indicate specifically that there was not support in the Aboriginal community for her appointment. Senator Herron—For the record, I spoke to Mr O’Shane. His opinion in relation to that particular matter was that Evelyn Scott did not receive a certain number of votes. That is not a criterion that concerns me. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, we are going to be here all night if you keep doing this. I could not care how many votes she got. Senator Herron—I believe she has got support in the Aboriginal community. Senator BOB COLLINS—With respect, that was not the bit of the quote I was concerned about. The quote I was concerned about from Mr O’Shane was: "She has not been able to . . . We would have a lot of difficulty supporting her in the position the Government has appointed her to...Shewill espouse the policies of the Government." You tell me, and I am pleased to hear it, that, in a conversation you have had since yesterday when this was quoted, Mr O’Shane has indicated to you that he does now support the appointment. What I said, and, I think, in sweet reasonableness, is that until 30 seconds ago that was a matter known only to you and Mr O’Shane. That is the final position. What I said to you was, if I can recollect it for you, that I thought that, seeing as this is a public forum, it was very important that Mr O’Shane, in respect of this appointment, having clarified that with you privately, clarifies it at the earliest opportunity publicly. You then replied to me, ‘No, it’s too early for him to need to clarify that because the situation has not yet been concluded. It is still not resolved.’ Senator Herron—It is not concluded until the Governor-General makes the appointment. That is the requirement. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, are you telling me—and I was heartened to think you were a moment ago—that the government will not alter the decision announced by the Prime Minister that Ms Scott is to be the chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation? Senator Herron—That is correct, and Sir Gustav Nossal as deputy chairman. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you, Minister. Can you explain to me then why it is too early for Mr O’Shane to clarify his position as to the suitability of Ms Scott for the position? Senator Herron—Because she has not been appointed by the Governor-General.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 375

Senator BOB COLLINS—Are you seriously suggesting to me that, for the first time, certainly, since 1975, the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, will not take the advice of his ministers on the question of the appointment of the chairperson of the council? Senator Herron—No, I am not. I am following the letter of the law, which I would expect you to do as well. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, let us assume then that we accept this extraordinary view of yours that the Governor-General will in fact make his own choice as to the chair of the council. Let us just assume that. Let us just assume at the moment, to go along with this extraordinary proposition, that, so far as the government is concerned, Ms Scott is currently the frontrunner pending the Governor-General making his own mind up as to who chairs the council. Senator Herron—I am not suggesting that at all and you well know that. Senator BOB COLLINS—That is what you have suggested. But Ms Scott has been nominated by the Prime Minister of Australia as the new chair. You do not argue that, do you? Senator Herron—Are you being facetious? Senator BOB COLLINS—No. It is a very serious question. If I can repeat it, and we will be here all night at this rate, you do confirm that the Prime Minister of Australia has announced that Ms Scott will be— Senator Herron—I thought you were being facetious because that is on the public record. It has been repeated any number of times. I am just wondering why you are wasting time. Senator BOB COLLINS—We are obviously on different planets, Minister. Fine. Having accepted that, Minister, and considering that the authority for this is the Prime Minister of our country, don’t you think it is important for Mr O’Shane to clarify his position with regard to Ms Scott’s suitability? Senator Herron—It is up to Mr O’Shane. I do not direct Mr O’Shane as to what to do. Knowing Mr O’Shane very well, I think I would get the very reverse reaction if I said to him that he should go on the public record to clarify his position. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, I am pursuing this at this point only for the purpose of knowing how ludicrous this will look in the Hansard tomorrow in terms of what you have just said. Accepting that, and I do not argue it, why then did you say that it was too early for Mr O’Shane to clarify his position? Senator Herron—Because Ms Scott has not been appointed under the terms of the act by the Governor-General. Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, okay. Senator Herron—I am still awaiting the Leader of the Opposition’s nominees to the Reconciliation Council because I think it is vitally important that it continue. Senator BOB COLLINS—Fine. Can we assume from that that, if the Leader of the Opposition does respond to you and puts a strong position to you and the Prime Minister that Ms Scott’s appointment will not have the full-blooded support of the opposition, you may then reconsider the appointment? Senator Herron—No. Senator BOB COLLINS—And that is what you call consultation?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 376 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator Herron—It is more consultation than was given the last time around. I do have the letter, and I tabled it in the Senate yesterday, that was sent to the Leader of the Opposition at the time by my predecessor with the final list. I can only go on the correspondence that I have, because, as you know, I have not had access— Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, with respect, I have an advantage over you in that sense in that I was involved in those consultations. Senator Herron—As you said yesterday. Senator BOB COLLINS—Forget what is on the written record. It will surprise you to know that there was a lot of discussion outside of those pieces of paper. Senator Herron—Yes, I appreciate that. Senator BOB COLLINS—And the opposition fully supported and endorsed, before it was proceeded with, the appointment of the current chair and deputy chair. In fact, a number of your colleagues then said to me that they thought it was a balanced team in terms of its politics, if you like, and the combined experience of Mr Dodson and Mr Viner in the relevant area. Minister, I am absolutely certain that, if there had not been consensus support for the establishment of the Reconciliation Council, those appointments would not have been proceeded with. The then government would have gone back to square one and looked for someone else that was satisfactory. I can assure you that intense efforts were made to get support. Senator Herron—I accept your assurance, but, as I say, I can only go on what I have in front of me in terms of the record that is kept. What occurred before that I haven’t the faintest idea. I accept your assurance that that occurred. Senator BOB COLLINS—I do not think there is much point in pursuing it except to say that, after this extraordinary trip around the paddock, I believe it would be in everyone’s interests, considering what you have put on the public record tonight—and that is the only reason I suggest it—if Mr O’Shane, now having made public his position on this, second-hand, if you like, with respect to you, took the first opportunity he could so everyone else knows about it via the press, the rest of us not being privy to your conversations with Mr O’Shane. Senator Herron—That is entirely up to him. Senator BOB COLLINS—That would help enormously, I believe. Senator Herron—Mr O’Shane is but one of 20 commissioners. I do not know why, Senator Collins, you are putting so much weight on one particular person, albeit that he comes from the same town. Senator BOB COLLINS—Again, in terms of the nonsense that has already been put on the record tonight, Minister, I think you would have been far better in not adding anything. Senator Herron—I have got no difficulties. It is all on the record. Senator BOB COLLINS—He is only one of 20 commissioners and you do not know why I would be concerned about the particular relevance of his opinion. Senator Herron—When you take into account there might be many others that might come forward with a reverse opinion, for all I know. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, aren’t you aware that Mr O’Shane is the commissioner appointed by ATSIC as the commissioner directly responsible for native title social justice measures? Senator Herron—Yes. That is why I rang him.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 377

Senator BOB COLLINS—Would you agree, Minister, that the whole question of social justice for Aboriginal Australians is absolutely central to the work of the reconciliation council? Senator Herron—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—Do you accept the fact that Mr O’Shane, in addition to that specific role—utterly relevant to the council’s work—is also, as I started off by saying, the ATSIC Commissioner for North Queensland, that area of Australia that Ms Scott also lives and works in, and is part of the same Aboriginal community? Senator Herron—She also works in Sydney as well. She has many outstanding qualifications. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, I am pleased to know that you have put on the record your view that Terry O’Shane’s opinion on this is worth no more than any other commissioner on the council. Mr Vaughan, during the June estimates you confirmed to us that, as a result of the 1996-97 budget, the council had sustained a cut in running costs of $370,000 and a reduction in its program budget of $1 million. You told us that had been the subject of correspondence between the chairperson and the Prime Minister. Is there any outcome from that in terms of the funding? Has any decision been made to restore it? Mr Vaughan—Senator, I was not here in June. Perhaps it was one of the other officers who said that. Senator BOB COLLINS—Mr Vaughan, there is no need to answer it tonight. If you were not here I will not press you on it. I will organise to put it on notice afterwards. Mr Vaughan—Thanks. Senator BOB COLLINS—During those same hearings—I will just complete this and if you are not across it just let me know—we were told that the office had little or no involvement in preparing the initial response to the government on the Bringing Them Home report—the stolen generations report as it called. I asked if the office had been involved in providing any advice to the Prime Minister, or indeed to the minister, regarding any official statement on behalf of the government or the parliament in respect of actions taken by past administrations relating to the report. I was advised that that was not the case. Has the office, since the June estimates, provided any further advice to either the minister or the Prime Minister on the Bringing Them Home report? Mr Vaughan—Yes, it has. Senator BOB COLLINS—Has any IDC been established in respect of the report? Mr Vaughan—There is. Senator BOB COLLINS—Which departments are involved in that? Mr Vaughan—ATSIC, Health and Family Services, Communications and the Arts, Attorney-General’s and perhaps one or two others. Senator BOB COLLINS—I would like to know how many times it has met. If you do not have that advice, Mr Vaughan, just take it on notice. Mr Vaughan—It has met once to date. Senator BOB COLLINS—Once? Mr Vaughan—Once as a group and the subsequent dealings have been on a bilateral basis between the parties.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 378 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator BOB COLLINS—Do you have any idea at this point, Minister or officers, when we can expect an official government response? Mr Vaughan—I think the government has indicated that it will respond before the end of the year. Senator BOB COLLINS—Last year the Prime Minister, at a press conference held I think on 13 December, was asked a number of questions by journalists relating to the appointment of Gatjil Djerrkura as chair of ATSIC and Mr Djerrkura’s publicly stated desire, and an important one I might add, that the Prime Minister visit at first-hand Aboriginal communities. I know, before the minister starts trotting out his diary again— Senator Herron—I have not brought it with me. Senator BOB COLLINS—that the minister would be the first person in this room to agree that there is no substitute in terms of informing yourself—paperwork has got a limit—to actually going to a few places at least on the ground to see them first hand. The Prime Minister said, and I quoted this in an adjournment speech that I delivered earlier this week in the Senate, in December last year that he was conscious of that, that he was keen to do it, and that he was putting his diary together for this year, the inference being that that was a matter that was going to be taken into account when this year’s diary was put together. It is now 12 November and I wanted to ask you, has the office been involved in providing to the Prime Minister advice on which Aboriginal communities he should visit—in other words, a potential itinerary for a Prime Ministerial visit to an Aboriginal community? I am aware that the Prime Minister has been to the Torres Strait to discuss principally, in terms of the public press, the desire of the Torres Strait Islanders for autonomy. But, to the best of my knowledge, since his election the Prime Minister has not visited a mainland Aboriginal community. Are you aware of whether that is correct or not? It must have been very secret if he did. Mr Vaughan—I am not familiar with all of the Prime Minister’s movements, but the question of the advice we have or have not given him in respect of his itinerary of course I cannot go into. Senator BOB COLLINS—Certainly not the detail. Have you received a request from the Prime Minister or his office to provide them with a suggested itinerary? Senator HEFFERNAN—Is that relevant? Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, it is. It is the business of this committee. Mr Vaughan—There is constant interaction between the department and the Prime Minister’s office about day-to-day operational things: about electorate visits, briefings for those purposes, options, possibilities—all those sorts of things. Senator BOB COLLINS—We do not have time to canvass it all; there are many public invitations. There is a great desire and wish from Aboriginal Australians for contact, particularly in the current climate where these Aboriginal affairs issues are dominating the entire political spectrum, as they have for most of this year. Before Christmas we are, as you know, debating and dealing in the Senate with the native title bill. Just in today’s Sydney Morning Herald there is a very prominent article titled ‘Cut to the Wik’, which, considering your job, I am sure you are familiar with. Next to that article is what I thought was an absolutely superb column by Margo Kingston. I think it is an excellent piece of journalism— not something I have always said about Margo Kingston’s columns but I am certainly prepared to say it about this one.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 379

In terms of the chuckles of the acting chairman, I must say to you, Mr Chair, with great respect, that if you are unmoved personally about what is contained in this column in respect of Bob Oobagooma’s position— Senator HEFFERNAN—You can make your own presumptions but do not assume anything with me, thank you. Senator BOB COLLINS—Then don’t laugh out loud. Senator HEFFERNAN—I was not laughing about the article. You assume too much. You know where I will stand. Senator BOB COLLINS—On native title? I do not know, but I have got a fair idea. I presume you would be with the NFF as a pastoralist on total extinguishment. But by all means clarify that. If I can just get back to the case in hand— Senator HEFFERNAN—You can’t say that. Senator BOB COLLINS—Pardon? Senator HEFFERNAN—You heard what I said. Senator BOB COLLINS—No, I didn’t. Senator Herron—Could we get on with the estimates? I have all the officers here— Senator BOB COLLINS—I am in the astonishing position on this committee of having the chair being the most disorderly person in the room in terms of that little comment that was just made to me— Senator Herron—Private conversations are not my concern—I can’t hear them anyway. ACTING CHAIR (Senator Watson)—I am acting chairman. Senator BOB COLLINS—I assumed, because he was sitting in the chairman’s seat, that— Senator HEFFERNAN—You should not assume anything. That is what I told you before. Senator Herron—Let us get on with the estimates. We are happy to answer your questions, Senator Collins. Senator BOB COLLINS—Just to go back to the column, which I found to be a very moving story. Margo Kingston related the appalling position one distinguished Aboriginal elder in this country will find himself in in respect of his own country. I note in the article that he was allowed to spend one night there recently and has a commitment apparently to spend one more night on it next month. Contained in this article is a statement from Mr Yu that he had asked the Prime Minister, John Howard, three times to visit the Kimberley, without a response. That is the reason I am raising this. Minister, as a person who continually tells us that you visited more Aboriginal communities than anyone else in history— Senator Herron—Only in the last 18 months. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, you know there is no substitute for visiting, in terms of getting some insight into how Aboriginal people really think and feel about their country. Aren’t you concerned that the Prime Minister said in December last year, in response to a direct question about visiting Aboriginal communities, that he would but has not done so. Considering the fact that the Senate is about to consider and, so far as the Prime Minister is concerned—and I watched him saying it again tonight—pass a piece of legislation which the Aboriginal community in Australia has got profound objections to, aren’t you concerned that all of that will happen without a single visit to a single mainland Aboriginal community from the Prime Minister since the election?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 380 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator Herron—You brought up that article. I thought that article was excellent as well. It is interesting that that same Aboriginal elder was unable to get access to his land under your government, which had control of that for a number of years. Senator BOB COLLINS—I know. But you are now the government. Senator Herron—It is significant to point that out. Having said that, I point out that the Prime Minister has met with many Aboriginal people over a prolonged period of time in relation to the matters that you refer to. There have been numerous meetings. I think I brokered the first one in that regard. But, as you well know also, there are constraints on the Prime Minister’s time. I do not think it is essential. I agree that there is no substitute for going out and sitting in the dust and talking to the elders and all the rest of it, as I do regularly. Senator BOB COLLINS—You do not have to sit in the dust. Senator Herron—You have to. If you go out to Oak Valley there is nowhere else to sit. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, with respect, of course I am conscious not only of the restrictions on a Prime Minister’s time but indeed on the time of ministers—much lower down the food chain than the Prime Minister. Senator Herron—Very much lower down. Senator BOB COLLINS—Have a look at the last 18 months—in fact, it is more than 18 months now. The very first press conference that the newly elected Prime Minister held in Canberra, as you know, was dominated by the question of Aboriginal affairs—that is, the very dramatic announcement made by the Prime Minister at his first press conference in Canberra that the ATSIC board’s funds were going to be frozen, that a special auditor was going to be appointed and that, indeed, the government was going to amend the act to give itself the power to sack the entire board of ATSIC and replace it with an administrator. That intention was only stopped by the Senate voting against it. That was the beginning of the 18 months. Considering the fact that unarguably Aboriginal affairs, native title, Wik or whatever have dominated the political landscape ever since then and that we are about to debate, at the end of this two years, a highly controversial piece of legislation—we started the new government with this and we are ending these two years with it—don’t you think that it is a matter of concern that the Prime Minister has not visited a single Aboriginal community on mainland Australia since the election? Senator Herron—Senator Collins, you are on the record as saying, as I am, that every community is different. Agreed? Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes. Senator Herron—How many communities do you want him to visit to get some concept of what Aboriginal people are speaking about? I could nominate some where he would be welcomed with open arms and banners. Most of them would. Banners would be out and bands would be playing. Senator BOB COLLINS—I have been publicly pleading for it to happen. The answer to your question about how many is that one would be a great start. Senator Herron—You are on the record as saying that in order to get some understanding of the communities, you would have to visit them. I agree. Senator BOB COLLINS—If I were running the office of Aboriginal affairs, and I am sure the government is very thankful I am not—

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 381

ACTING CHAIR (Senator Watson)—Order! We are getting off the estimates a little, with respect. Senator BOB COLLINS—This is directly relevant to the estimates. This is why the officers from the Office of Indigenous Affairs are sitting here. We are talking about their job. Minister, I am answering your question. I would say to the Prime Minister that, in respect of these native title issues we are talking about now, unarguably, the part of Australia that is most directly affected by every part of this is the Kimberleys in northern Western Australia. My advice to the Prime Minister would be that if he wants to pick one area to visit, he should pick the Kimberleys. Senator Herron—I will let him know your advice. Senator BOB COLLINS—He has six weeks. I thank the minister and the officers. We might move on to ATSIC now. Senator Herron—Before they go, would you care to tell us where in that legislation it says there should be consultation. Senator BOB COLLINS—I will take it on notice. Senator Herron—It is not there. The officers are still here. If it is not there, you should admit it. Senator BOB COLLINS—I will provide you with a copy. I will get it from my office. Senator Herron—I have a copy here for you. Senator BOB COLLINS—I will get a copy of the relevant section tonight from my office. Senator Herron—I am happy to give it to you. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, with respect, it is you who is relevant to this, not these officers; they can go home. Senator Herron—You made the statement that it was in the act. You have to show that. Senator BOB COLLINS—When I get a minute to get on a telephone to my office, I will get the piece of paper that you are looking for. In the meantime, I suggest, with respect, that you let the officers go home. Senator Herron—I thought that we might resolve this while they are still here. Senator BOB COLLINS—We will tonight. You are the relevant person in respect of this. Senator Herron—I do not want a statement; I want it on the record. Senator BOB COLLINS—Considering the fact that it is 8.55 p.m. and I am being urged by the Acting Chair to get on with it and we have a pile of stuff to go through, I would like to get on with it. [8.58 p.m.] Program 7—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs ACTING CHAIR—I welcome representatives from ATSIC. Senator BOB COLLINS—Once again, I appear to be the only senator asking questions. Acting Chair, the minister is aware, as are the ATSIC officers because I gave prior notice—it is not something I always do—that I want to canvass tonight both the Daffen and Fingleton reports. I have other questions, even though they are, strictly speaking, considered in C. Because it is the most substantive part, is there any objection to my starting with it? Senator Herron—No. We are happy to cooperate, Senator Collins.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 382 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

ACTING CHAIR—You want to combine A, B and C? Senator BOB COLLINS—If you would not mind. ACTING CHAIR—There being no objection, it is so agreed. Senator BOB COLLINS—I have a number of questions to ask about the Daffen review which, as you are aware, is somewhat dated at this point. I was wondering whether any of the officers at the table wanted to make any preliminary statement in respect of the Daffen review in order to put it in context. Ms Turner—I will ask Mr Schnierer to handle that. Mr Schnierer—The Daffen review is now just over three years old. We are now looking to the future in terms of some other reviews that are under way. While it is dated in time, we are also having a good, hard look at the organisation from a couple of perspectives at this point in the section 26 review and the work review study. So it is dated in that sense as well as in terms of the direction in which the structure of the organisation might go. The report was released in May 1994. It made a number of recommendations about the structure of the organisation. In very general terms, the executive management of the organisation agreed to many of those recommendations, but not all. In broad terms, the report recommended that staffing resources should be redirected to state and regional offices with particular emphasis on increasing numbers of field staff; that state offices should increase their support to regional offices; that personnel functions should be moved from central office to the state offices to provide a more immediate service to staff in our regional and state offices; and that we should allocate additional resources to commercial Commonwealth-state relations units in different state offices. I can report that, essentially, the proportional changes that were required between central office, state offices and the regional offices were achieved. They are still largely in place today, although we have had a number of major changes to the organisation in the three years since the report was released. There have been some ons and offs in terms of transferring functions and staff between the three levels. But the proportional split is essentially the same as it was then. Senator BOB COLLINS—I would just ask a number of questions about this report. I would just make the point—as I made to Ms Turner when I spoke about this prior to estimates—that I do not personally have a particular view about any or all of these recommendations in the sense of them being wise and sensible or not. But, in responding to what ATSIC has done about those recommendations and particularly where those recommendations were not carried out—for possibly very good reasons—I would like you to indicate to me why that was the case. You mentioned a few minutes ago one of the central criticisms of the Daffen report of the then ATSIC, and I know it has changed considerably since. To quote the report, Mr Daffen found that central office here in Canberra had grown in number from 327 on its inception in 1991 to 488 as at November 1993, which was a growth of seven per cent, but that over the same corresponding period of time the state offices had decreased by four per cent and the regional offices by three per cent. He also found that central office staffing accounted for 37 per cent of ATSIC’s work force. I wonder if you could tell me what those same statistics are now. Mr Schnierer—I have some figures here on paid staff. At the end of 1993-94, 31 per cent of staff were at central office; today there is 27.9 per cent. For state offices in 1993-94, it was

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 383

17 per cent of staff; in 1997-98, it is 19.7 per cent—so it has gone up. Back in 1993-94 in regional offices, it was 43.6 per cent of staff; today, it is up to 46.8 per cent. So there has been a movement there, which has continued over that period of time. Senator BOB COLLINS—Is that situation static or is it continuing to move in that direction? Or has that matter been basically resolved and it has settled down now? Mr Schnierer—This is one of the reasons why we have been conducting a particular review now called the work review study. It is recommending that we also look at how we make those arrangements in relation to service and program delivery in state and regional offices to improve and increase the effectiveness of our services there. That review is not talking about shifting resources, it is looking at how we should structure ourselves and take advantage of some new ideas that they are putting forward in terms of how we can better deliver our programs and provide policy advice to the board and to the minister. While there will not be any shifts, as I understand it, between the three levels of resources, we will certainly be looking at the way business is conducted within the organisation and how that is structured. Senator BOB COLLINS—But in terms of that central issue of the actual shift of resources, which you have indicated has moved in the way that Mr Daffen has recommended—although clearly not to the extent that he recommended—is it the view now of ATSIC that that broad shift has been completed; or is there still a view in ATSIC that the movement of staff away from Canberra to the regions needs to continue? That is, have you got the shift to the point where you are going to leave it? Mr Schnierer—I understand we are at the point where we are going to leave it. Senator BOB COLLINS—That is fine. That is all I wanted to know. One of the other central concerns that Mr Daffen raised, as you are aware, was the very high proportion of support staff—leaving aside where they were located—as against field staff. Support staff at the time of his review comprised 34 per cent of total staff as against field staff which comprised 24 per cent. Can you tell me what those statistics are now? Mr Schnierer—Not off the top of my head, but the work review study we have just completed has come up with a similar situation in terms of our core functions. We believe that we should be looking to continue the reduction in corporate support and move more resources towards program delivery and policy formulation. Those recommendations are currently under consideration in terms of how that can be arranged. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thanks. I do not want to just leave it there, Mr Schnierer, in the sense that I would like that ratio provided— Mr Schnierer—Yes, I will take it on notice. Senator BOB COLLINS—Mr Daffen was concerned—this is the significance of the point— that the low number of field staff by proportion gave rise to concern over the quantity and quality of client service delivery. As I know you are aware, the constant complaint that you get—not just about ATSIC but also about the Northern Land Council, the Central Land Council and politicians—is that people never see them on the ground. When I am going around bush communities, people are constantly saying, ‘The ATSIC people don’t come out here enough.’ They also say that the land council people do not come out here and that I do not— you can never satisfy that demand. ACTING CHAIR—Question? Senator BOB COLLINS—Does someone else want to ask one? ACTING CHAIR—No, I am asking you for your question.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 384 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator BOB COLLINS—Sorry, I thought there was a queue. ACTING CHAIR—I thought you were making a speech. Senator BOB COLLINS—I was. That is what parliament is all about. ACTING CHAIR—Not estimates. Senator BOB COLLINS—You want to bet? ACTING CHAIR—Not while I am chairman. Senator BOB COLLINS—Really? ACTING CHAIR—Question? Senator BOB COLLINS—Mr Schnierer, if you could tell us on notice what the present ratio is. Mr Schnierer—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you. I do want to go through the recommendations, but some other central problems raised by Daffen—and ATSIC obviously agreed with this— included the preponderance of staff in head office, the ratio of support staff to field staff and the lack of staffing stability caused by too great a reliance on temporary staff and the number of staff acting in higher positions. I had a look at those statistics myself and they were very high then. Has that situation changed at all since the review? Mr Schnierer—I am not sure what the trend is since the review. Senator BOB COLLINS—Daffen actually said that recruitment procedures of ATSIC needed to be improved and the time taken to fill vacancies in ATSIC was excessive. Has this been addressed? Mr Schnierer—My feeling is that our employment of temporaries has gone down dramatically. I do not want to get into statistics, I would rather give you an accurate answer on that. Senator BOB COLLINS—Take that again on notice. Mr Schnierer—That is on acting and HDA? Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, I want the comparison between the time that Daffen did his review of temporary as against permanent, people acting in higher duties et cetera. His concern was that that needed to be improved and the recruitment practices of the organisation had to be addressed in terms of the time that was being taken to fill vacancies. Daffen went on to recommend the establishment of area offices in lieu of state offices. He recommended a transfer in globo of 30 per cent of staff and resources from central office to these regional offices. Where is that at? Mr Schnierer—We did not accept that recommendation in terms of the area offices. In fact, we left that as an option to be considered later on if we thought it was worthy of more consideration. The track that we went down was, rather than having area offices, to augment the major state offices with a deputy state manager at SES level, which meant a move of resources from central office out to states in terms of SES level resources. We saw that as a much better way at that point in time to augment the services that were delivered to people in the regional offices and regional councils and to communities. Senator BOB COLLINS—So you disagreed with that particular recommendation?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 385

Mr Schnierer—That particular thing on area offices, but we did not close the door completely on it. It is an idea that can be considered. Senator BOB COLLINS—In terms of the major review of the ATSIC Act that was mentioned earlier, can someone tell me where that is at at the moment in terms of process? Ms Turner—We are currently in the process of having a round of consultations with indigenous communities around the country. We dispatched in September a consultation kit, which included a discussion paper and a one-page issues sheet that summarises the issues that we would like to have the community’s views on. There are two or three questions at the bottom of each of those sheets—in some cases a few more. There is also a blank sheet attached where community groups can provide their answers. The steering committee comprises the Chairman, me, Commissioner Crawshaw from Darwin, Commissioner John Delaney from Sydney, a representative of the Office of Indigenous Affairs and a representative from our minister’s office. The steering committee is involved in a major consultative meeting in each state and territory. The consultations and the date for the closure of submissions is 30 November this year. We will write up the report and have a meeting with national peak indigenous organisations in January with our board. A report will go to the February board meeting and, if the board is happy with that document, it will be submitted to the minister following that meeting. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thanks very much. Considering that the deadline is the end of the month, do you have any idea how many submissions you have received to date? Ms Turner—No, I do not off the top of my head, sorry. ACTING CHAIR—Do you want them to take it on notice? Senator BOB COLLINS—No, I do not think so; nothing hangs on it. Ms Turner—Can I just give you some information on the changes to the numbers of staff since Daffen. For example, in central office in 1993-94, we had 431 officers and at pay nine this year we have 350. The numbers in state offices went from 239 to 247 and in regional offices it is about the same. During this time we have had budget cuts across the board. While the state offices and the regional offices have pretty well maintained their numbers—state offices have certainly increased their numbers and regional offices at the moment are down just slightly, by seven, on what they were in 1993-94—central office is down by over 80. We have taken the lion’s share of the cuts in order to have that support out there in the network. Senator BOB COLLINS—I might also add for the record, which is important, that the Daffen report—obviously I want to concentrate on the recommendations—was very supportive of the work that ATSIC was doing. In fact, I will just read briefly from the relevant section. He said: ATSIC commenced operations in 1990 and, in its short history, has made significant progress. I will now just go through some of the detail, Mr Schnierer. There was a concern raised by Mr Daffen about the slow progress being made in the development of computerised systems in management of the financial information and, as he said, this particularly applies in the area of grants administration. Has there been any progress made on that? Mr Schnierer—We have had some major advances on computerised systems in relation to grants. We are just now getting into a very important phase in relation to our system called InSight, which is our most important software package in relation to administration of grants

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 386 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997 in addition to the FMI system itself. We have undertaken a major review in relation to our grant procedures, and that has set us up to have a look at how the software supports that. Now we are just going through a phase of modifying that system to get us through the next grant phase. For the following year, we will be looking at a whole new InSight system based on the experience of the first and slightly modified system. So over the next six to 12 months we will be looking at quite a significant upgrade, particularly to our InSight system, and we are making quite a huge investment in the replacement of our financial management information system. Hopefully that will start to come on-line by the end of this financial year. Senator BOB COLLINS—At 1.14 of the report, Mr Daffen also raised concern. He said: Central Office structure is characterised by a proliferation of relatively small work units not conducive to efficient resource utilisation. There are 60 work units, each highly specialised— and, of course, the detail of the report basically talked about these little islands and that there was poor communication between them— and mostly headed by a SOG B officer. Can you respond to that concern? Mr Schnierer—We have a very strong emphasis now on people working across divisions and branches and sections in terms of policy development and formulation. However, we do need specialist units from time to time, and they are set up. Obviously there is a particular one now on Wik, for example, which is a priority issue for the commission. So we reserve the resources to be able to do that and to target resources for particular issues. Senator BOB COLLINS—Sure, but the particular concern that Daffen raised was that these units were operating—at least as he saw it—far too exclusively and not efficiently utilising common resources. Are you satisfied that that situation has been addressed? Mr Schnierer—I would have to say no at this point in time because our work review study has looked at a radical change to the structure of central office, changing how our central office is to be organised, or put a model to us that we need to consider. We are having a good hard look at it. It will change the nature of how we operate. Senator BOB COLLINS—Is that being done by consultants? Mr Schnierer—The report has been done by consultants, yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—So that is ongoing? Mr Schnierer—Their report is finished and we are now looking at it. Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, but I mean that the implementation is an ongoing matter. Mr Schnierer—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—I have to tell you that these acronyms are all Greek to me, even after all my years in this business. The report goes on to say: ATSIC’s Central Office has a high classification profile. Sixty one of ATSIC’s eighty two SOG B positions are in Central Office. The 13 Branches are each headed by an Assistant General Manager at SES 1. I certainly understand the central thrust of these concerns. It goes on to say: The average salary of the 488 staff employed in Central Office approximates the mid-range of ASO 6 ($42,356), compared to the overall average within ATSIC of $39,703... The point is made, and I certainly understand it, that in terms of the highly paid and, therefore by definition, the more productive or qualified or whatever, there was a very heavy

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 387 concentration of those in Canberra and far too few of them out in the regions. Has that been addressed? Mr Schnierer—As I said earlier, we moved a number of SES positions out into the states to augment the network supporting regional offices, so a number of SES officers have moved out. In terms of our profile and the benchmarks that Mr Daffen compared us to, I am not quite sure that they are relevant to where we are today. Even then, my view is that I am not sure they were the most relevant either because of the unique situation of ATSIC and the sort of policy work that we have to cover in relation to the number of policies and the range and diversity. We do have a different demand on staff in terms of their work in the policy area and in the program areas compared with other agencies which have their central offices here in Canberra. So I would be questioning some of his benchmarks in relation to that. There is no problem at all in terms of us needing to constantly look at that problem because that classification structure makes it difficult to bring indigenous staff in, and that is one of our big concerns with trying to change the structure to allow that to occur more effectively as well. So I would question whether his benchmarks are still relevant to us today and whether he really understood the uniqueness of ATSIC in terms of the high level of policy work that we have to do and the diversity that we have that I do not think any other agency has to deal with. So, in that situation, some of the benchmarks have a question mark over them as far as I am concerned. Senator BOB COLLINS—Is ATSIC satisfied that you do have sufficient senior officers at the sharp end; that is, in the regions? Mr Schnierer—I believe so, yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—He goes on to say: Notwithstanding an overall major investment by ATSIC in Staff Development and Training of approximately 28 full-time staff and an estimated $3.0m expenditure annually, there has been a limited return. An overhaul of the Staff Development and Training function is necessary. Has that been addressed? Mr Schnierer—Yes, it has. As I understand it, we moved the functional responsibility for staff development and training for regions and state offices out to the states so that they could have more direct control over it and increase the opportunity for their training direction. They can then be a lot more responsive to local needs and differences within their states and within their particular regional offices and the like. That responsibility was devolved, so that was a major change that we undertook at the time. Senator BOB COLLINS—The next one has a very familiar ring to it because the problem also involves nurses, teachers or whatever. He goes on to make a recommendation that: Special employment packages, outside normal APS conditions of service, need to be formulated to attract and retain suitable staff in isolated areas. Do you want to comment on that? Mr Schnierer—Yes. We have been looking at the issue of remote area packages for quite a few years now. It has been a difficult process for us because each time we seek to get consideration of an additional benefit of some sort there is usually some other agency who does not want us to proceed down that track. With ATSIC being such a small agency, we have not had the pull to come to grips with that and to succeed. With the new workplace relations legislation, which has freed up the opportunities for agencies to look at—

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 388 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator BOB COLLINS—Differentiation? Mr Schnierer—Exactly—we are going to look at that quite strongly in our negotiations with staff over the next three to six months as we look towards our first agreements. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you. I know it is an extremely difficult area. It is not unique, as you know, to ATSIC. A lot of other service delivery agencies have the same problem. I do not want to go through this again, but the reason I put this to you is that I deliberately gave prior notice of the level of detail that I wanted here tonight. Daffen goes on from that recommendation to actually detail—and I do not want this here tonight—in terms of recommendations right through to point 2.10, a detailed list of specific changes that he recommended being made: 151 positions be distributed to areas of highest priority; in addition, 94 corporate service support positions in regional office; 245 positions distributed in the way that he suggested, and so on. Are you familiar with those specific, detailed recommendations? Mr Schnierer—If necessary, I can get the information. Senator BOB COLLINS—He says: Field staff in Regional Offices should increase from 294 to 422 . . . percentage of ATSIC’s overall work force from 24% to 32% in the field— and so on. ACTING CHAIR—Do you prefer to take that on notice? Mr Schnierer—I would like to take that on notice just to get the accurate figures. I did run through some percentages earlier and I am not sure whether they have— Senator BOB COLLINS—He goes on to say, for example, to take another global resource statistic, that: Field staff will represent 61% of Regional Office staffing. Has that been achieved? Mr Schnierer—I would need to take that on notice. Ms Turner—Since that report was done, we have had the budget cuts, which I referred to earlier, which have been particularly felt in the regions. We also lost the health function and we have program managers involved in our community housing and infrastructure program. The nature of the work that is undertaken today is somewhat different in terms of field staff from what it was in 1993-94. That needs to be reflected in any answers that we provide to you. Senator BOB COLLINS—Sure, and what also needs to be said in terms of accuracy is that Daffen also recommended an increase in the total of ATSIC, not a decrease—only a marginal increase, but nevertheless an increase. I have canvassed the central issues of Daffen in terms of his major concerns and you have responded to those, but, as I indicated to ATSIC earlier, I would like a detailed response to the detailed recommendations. ACTING CHAIR—Can you table your questions? Senator BOB COLLINS—There is an easier way of doing that. I can just refer to recommendations in the report itself. Mr Rees—Can I make a suggestion? Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes. Mr Rees—At the time we responded to Daffen, we put out a circular to staff which explained exactly what the executive management had decided to do. If we give you that

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 389 document, it will be in the context of the time and you can see for yourself that significant action was taken. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you, but just to get this right: are you saying that that document was sent to staff at the time? Mr Rees—At the time of implementing the recommendations of the Daffen report. Senator BOB COLLINS—So the document you are talking about is advice on the response to the recommendations? Ms Turner—Yes. Mr Rees—Absolutely. Senator BOB COLLINS—Perfect. If you could provide that to the committee, I would be grateful. For the completeness of the record, Mr Schnierer, you mentioned a number of other reviews. Is that a complete list of what is currently going on in terms of restructuring or reviews? There is the overall one, the total review, and you mentioned a second one—I cannot remember what you called it. Mr Schnierer—The work review study. Senator BOB COLLINS—Is that it? Mr Schnierer—On staffing matters? Senator BOB COLLINS—There are more—again on notice. There is no need to go through it here tonight. If you would not mind, for completeness, providing the committee with a list of the current reviews. Sitting suspended from 9.30 p.m. to 9.39 p.m. Senator BOB COLLINS—I would like to turn to the Fingleton review. Obviously, the reason for my interest in the Fingleton review— ACTING CHAIR—Just the question, I think. Senator BOB COLLINS—I am sorry, I have to put the questions in context. ACTING CHAIR—Sometimes putting them in context confuses the witnesses, I think. They are intelligent people. Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, I understand that. ACTING CHAIR—They do not need the questions explained. Senator BOB COLLINS—I understand that; with respect, I think I have actually cooperated to an extraordinary degree to curtail questions tonight. ACTING CHAIR—You have. Senator BOB COLLINS—That is what I am trying to do. I want to put it in context. I would like to explain why I want to put it in context. The officers are obviously free to add whatever they want to the specific questions I ask, which may save me asking a lot more questions. If I could just conclude it would be a lot quicker—if you would let me. The concern I have got and the interest I have got in the Fingleton review is that such a substantial proportion of ATSIC’s budget outlays go to organisations that are incorporated under this particular act and are not, in that sense, creatures of ATSIC in terms of accountability, and so on. That is the reason for my interest in this matter. As I understand it, this is the first full-blown review of this act that has been conducted in the 20 years it has been in existence. Is that correct?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 390 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Ms Sculthorpe—I believe that is the case. Mr Rees—Could I just qualify that answer a little bit. It is the first full-blown review that looks at cultural as well as corporate law considerations, but if you go back—I think into the early 1990s and the late 1980s—there was a succession of reports on the legislation done by lawyers and accountants. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you. I might just add—and I have looked at this in the break— ACTING CHAIR—It would be best to wait until the minister returns for that, please, if you are referring to— Senator BOB COLLINS—I was simply going to say that the section of the act that we were discussing earlier— ACTING CHAIR—I suggest you wait until the minister returns. Senator BOB COLLINS—I gave an undertaking, with respect, Mr Acting Chair, that I would clarify this at the earliest moment. The section of the act is in fact as the minister has quoted it. I just wanted to confirm that all the positions of the council, not simply the chairperson and deputy chairperson, are subject to advice from the Leader of the Opposition and, effectively, the Leader of the Democrats. It has been suggested, I think, that a series of legislative amendments, which were being pursued by the former government and which were designed allegedly to increase the accountability of the 2,600 corporations across Australia that are in receipt of hundreds of millions of dollars, be scrapped. Is that also correct? Ms Sculthorpe—I am not sure, Senator, that that is strictly accurate. The review was, as you would know, wide ranging. The recommendations of the review basically sought to ensure that the act was more culturally appropriate. It took up the question of accountability, and there was discussion concerning where accountability should lie. I believe it was suggested that it should lie more with the funding agency than with the incorporations body. Senator BOB COLLINS—But it is correct, is it not, that Mr Fingleton made a comparison—a rather stark one, I thought—between the accountability requirements in respect of Aboriginal organisations and other comparable organisations? Ms Sculthorpe—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—Which indicated that Aboriginal organisations, certainly in respect of that comparison, were considerably more regulated than other organisations? Ms Sculthorpe—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—Do you agree with that conclusion, that assessment of Mr Fingleton’s? Ms Sculthorpe—I certainly do. Senator BOB COLLINS—One of the fundamental recommendations of the review was, as I understand it, that there be some degree at least of deregulation of what the review quoted as being ‘highly formalistic regime’. Would that include a substantial reduction in the very wide ranging powers of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations? Ms Sculthorpe—Senator, I am not sure I can answer the question. The former minister, as you know, contracted this review, and ATSIC administered it. I am not sure that I can actually account for the thinking of the consultant beyond what is contained in the report.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 391

Senator BOB COLLINS—I will resist the temptation to ask him to come to the table. Perhaps if you cannot answer the questions, you could take them on notice. Ms Sculthorpe—Perhaps that will not be necessary. I might have another go at that. Could you repeat the question? Senator BOB COLLINS—One of the recommendations made was, following on what we have just agreed on—that is, that there was an enormous amount of paper regulation and requirements to comply and so on, some of which were highly unrealistic considering the isolated nature of some of these organisations—that there be deregulation of what was described as a highly formalistic regime. The question was: if that recommendation was followed through, would it in fact lead to a substantial reduction in the existing wide ranging powers of the indigenous corporate affairs watchdog, the registrar of indigenous corporations? Ms Sculthorpe—That would be possible, but that would depend on what the amendments or the new legislation actually contained. Senator BOB COLLINS—The review concluded that if this degree of deregulation and streamlining, whatever you want to call it, was carried out it would result in an improvement in the actual accountability of these organisations rather than a reduction. Is that correct? Ms Sculthorpe—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—The reason that this is very relevant, as the minister knows full well, with the special auditors report and so on in terms of non-complying organisations is that it is also a fact, is it not, that a great percentage of this so-called non-compliance, which has such a terrible impact in the community where people think people are running away with millions of dollars, was caused through failure to lodge documents that Mr Fingleton found were unnecessarily onerous in any case. Ms Sculthorpe—I believe that to be the case. Senator BOB COLLINS—I think it is correct, is it not, Mr Schnierer, that that was the conclusion of the special auditor himself? Mr Schnierer—There were a significant number of breaches due to non-compliance in relation to lodgment of financial statements and audited financial statements and the like. It might be worth discerning which documents the registrar required and we required because there are differences there as well. Senator BOB COLLINS—Does ATSIC agree with the finding of the review that the legislation has never delivered its original promise—and I remember when it was started—to provide indigenous groups with a simple, flexible and inexpensive alternative to complex state and territory legislation and to provide the Commonwealth with a vehicle for self-management and self-determination? Ms Sculthorpe—Do you mean does the ATSIC board agree with that? Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes. It is open to anyone here to respond, Ms Turner or the minister. You are aware that these were the objects of the original act. I can recall it very well. It was going to be simple, flexible, inexpensive but primarily—and this was one of the priorities—provide a vehicle which was culturally appropriate, if you like. Is it ATSIC’s view or is it your view that the act has substantially failed to deliver those objects? Ms Sculthorpe—I have a view. Yes, that is my view: that the act was established to provide a simple mechanism for Aboriginal organisations to incorporate; that it was never intended that organisations become involved in complex financial matters requiring onerous reporting;

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 392 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997 and that, over the years because of the political environment in which Aboriginal affairs is situated, circumstances have changed and a lot of organisations find the provisions of the act quite onerous. In fact those issues, together with the accountability provisions of funding agencies, in my experience have caused organisations a considerable deal of difficulty. Senator BOB COLLINS—Does the board of ATSIC have a view about that? Have they ever expressed a view about that? Ms Turner—They would like to have greater contact with the registrar. The registrar is not accountable to the board or has any direct communication with the board under the current arrangements. The board would like to see that change. The director of the OEA has a regular slot at board meetings. The board would like the same sort of arrangement in relation to the Registrar for Aboriginal Corporations. Senator BOB COLLINS—Do you mean actually having the officer’s physical presence on occasions at board meetings? Ms Turner—Yes, to report on matters in relation to his work, as Mr Miller does from OEA. It just keeps the board informed of where things are at and how things are progressing. In terms of the benefits of the legislation, it has been a relatively cheaper avenue for organisations to become incorporated because organisations cannot receive any money from our portfolio if they are not incorporated. Not all of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations in Australia are incorporated under this legislation. In fact, I think the review found about half were, and half were incorporated under other forms of legislation. So it has some benefits, but it also has a lot of measures that make it a little more onerous. The board would like to see that brought back in terms of being on a par with other corporate law legislation. Senator BOB COLLINS—Ms Turner, has the board ever proposed formally or informally to the registrar that he or a nominee should come along to ATSIC meetings? Ms Turner—The registrar has been invited to address the board on at least one occasion. They have not put into effect a regular discussion with the registrar mainly because of the size of the board and the amount of business they have to get through in terms of their legislative requirements under our own act. Individual commissioners are in touch with the registrar on matters from time to time. Senator BOB COLLINS—Leaving aside the legislative changes that could be made and so on, there would not be a need for anything other than an agreement for the registrar to have a regular appearance at board meetings, would there not? Ms Turner—I think that would be right. Senator BOB COLLINS—If you were minded to do so, you and Mr Bouhafs or whoever could simply do that by agreement at any time? There is nothing currently to prevent that. Ms Turner—The chairman of the board could have that arrangement with the registrar, but the registrar is essentially accountable to the minister not to the ATSIC board. Senator BOB COLLINS—That is right. Ms Turner—In terms of a cooperative arrangement there is nothing preventing that from happening. Ms Sculthorpe—The value of that would depend on the purpose of the registrar talking to the board. Those matters about which board members would be most concerned would, I

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 393 believe, be matters to do with the registrar’s statutory independence. It may well be of limited value. There certainly could be discussions of general matters. Senator BOB COLLINS—To take a real world example, would there be any value or indeed are there any statutory or legal bars to this happening—that is, for the registrar to meet with ATSIC officers or the board in respect of organisations incorporated under his act funded by ATSIC that are in trouble? Ms Sculthorpe—I believe that the answer to that question would really need to come from the registrar. It relates to how he interprets his responsibilities. Senator BOB COLLINS—Let me put it to ATSIC as the funding body. I am sure you understand the point of the question. This constant perception of misappropriation—and it is not just a perception but a reality in some cases, of course—from memory, and tell if I am wrong about this, is that the majority of situations where there are actual problems in percentage terms are in organisations incorporated under this act rather than organisations that are responsible directly to ATSIC. Is that correct? Ms Sculthorpe—I believe that was an outcome of the special auditor’s report. Senator BOB COLLINS—Does ATSIC believe that it would be, in a cooperative way, an advantage to ATSIC to have direct discussions—indeed they already happen—on a regular basis with the registrar on particular problem organisations funded by ATSIC but administered by him? Ms Sculthorpe—I believe that a lot of ATSIC managers would consider that to be an advantage in their grant administration. Senator BOB COLLINS—The clear implication in that answer is that it does not currently happen. Ms Turner—I think that it happens from time to time. Without wanting to speak on behalf of the registrar, I think he would say that his resources constrain him in the number of activities that he can undertake. Wherever possible we have liaison. We would like there to be greater liaison so that we can nip situations in the bud a little earlier. Senator BOB COLLINS—Precisely, that is why I was pursuing it. So ATSIC managers would see this as a plus? Ms Turner—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—I assume that ATSIC would also agree with the finding of the review—and I think the special auditor noted this—that the resources that are devoted to actually educating and training the organisational staff in the complexities of the procedures that they are obliged to conduct are, to quote the review, ‘woefully inadequate’? Ms Sculthorpe—Yes, ATSIC would agree with that. Senator BOB COLLINS—This next one, which is found in the review, I would like a comment on. ATSIC officials and many others complained to the review that administrators appointed by the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations acted like ‘little tin gods’ and did not possess the necessary skills to understand the tangled web of such organisations—that is, the relationships of traditional owners, other resident, non-Aboriginal staff assets and so on. Do you want to chance your arm on that? Ms Sculthorpe—Do we believe it to be the case, do you mean? Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you. Ms Sculthorpe—Can I say that I have heard that sort of criticism.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 394 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Ms Turner—We also get a lot of criticism— Senator BOB COLLINS—I was actually present at a hearing of the committee with the registrar and Aboriginal witness and that criticism was actually being made across the floor so I assumed it was correct. Ms Turner—We also get a lot of criticism when we put a grant controller in an organisation to assist with the financial management. I think that organisations generally do not necessarily appreciate the accountability requirements. Senator BOB COLLINS—I can relate to that. I was interested in the conclusion that was reached which says: The act vests a very wide authority in the single office of the registrar and makes every Aboriginal corporation dependent to a greater or lesser extent on the disposition— and I am making no comment about the incumbent— of whatever person that is filling that office. Is that a conclusion with which you would agree? Ms Sculthorpe—Except to say that that would be the case for any person holding any office. I am not sure if it is any more the case in this particular one. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you. Mr Bouhafs himself said during the review that ‘some of the act’s provisions were sowing the seeds of much discord and factionalism in communities across the country and were in need of amendment’. The only reason I am putting this to you is that Mr Bouhafs is not here. Are you aware of what particular bits of the act Mr Bouhafs may have been referring to from your own experience when he said that parts of the act were sowing the seeds of discord and factionalism? Ms Sculthorpe—No. I would really be guessing. Senator BOB COLLINS—Do not do that. Can I put the same thing to you as far as ATSIC is concerned. Does ATSIC have any concern about any aspects of the act from your own experience that you would see as causing discord and factionalism in the communities that have corporations incorporated under the act? Ms Sculthorpe—I believe some of it may relate to the provisions governing the appointment of administrators. I cannot think of anything else offhand. Some faction may be wanting action taken quickly if they consider there to be undue delays, some of which may be caused by provisions of the act. I cannot really add anything more to that. Senator BOB COLLINS—That is fine. That is very helpful. I knew there were 2,600 corporations incorporated under the act, but I must admit that I was somewhat startled by the results of the review because I was not aware of this. Is it correct as far as you are aware that, in the 20 years this act has operated, not a single indigenous council has been incorporated under the act? Mr Sadlo—That is correct. Senator BOB COLLINS—That is correct? Ms Sculthorpe—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—That is certainly one object of the act that has dramatically not been met. Thank you. Is it also correct, and I think we have canvassed this, that this act imposed a stricter accountability regime on indigenous corporations and applied to general corporations and that this indeed was a state of affairs that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 395

Islander Social Justice Commissioner said was, in his view, discriminatory? Is that also ATSIC’s position in terms of that level of accountability? Ms Sculthorpe—The ATSIC board certainly believes that the provisions of that act should not be any more onerous than the provisions of any similar legislation. Senator BOB COLLINS—That is the position of the board? Ms Sculthorpe—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you. Is it also true that there is in fact already a demarcation in terms of those levels of accountability between Aboriginal organisations that are incorporated under this particular act and Aboriginal organisations that are incorporated by other means? Ms Sculthorpe—Sorry? Senator BOB COLLINS—Just in broad numbers. Ms Sculthorpe—It is roughly half. Senator BOB COLLINS—That was the figure I was searching for. It is about half, isn’t it? Ms Sculthorpe—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—Clearly, ATSIC would be of the view that that is a completely unsatisfactory situation to allow to continue obviously. Ms Sculthorpe—I do not know. I am not of that view, no. Senator BOB COLLINS—What would your view be then? Ms Sculthorpe—While there is Commonwealth legislation, I always believe choice is a good thing. Senator BOB COLLINS—Sorry. I phrased the question badly. I do not dispute that either. I think that is a good thing. Would it not be advantageous for the communities, apart from anything else on the ground, to have at least some commonality in broad terms between the accountability requirements that need to be met by Aboriginal communities irrespective of how they are incorporated? Ms Turner—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you. That is stating the obvious, but we do that often here. I just wanted it on the record. Can you explain why the act applies the full set of statutory requirements to all corporations: . . . regardless of whether they are a multifunctional service provider conducting major businesses and handling millions of dollars of grant funds and income or their tiny remote communities which were only incorporated years ago to get title to a small remnant of their traditional land. Does ATSIC agree with that criticism of the act? Ms Sculthorpe—Can we explain why that is, did you say, Senator? Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes. There is no discretion, presumably, within the act to differentiate. Ms Sculthorpe—I believe that is the case. I cannot explain why that is. Senator BOB COLLINS—People who draft it—us—are obviously responsible for that. I would imagine that ATSIC’s view is that, in terms of potential amendments to the act, that is an area that ATSIC would want to see addressed.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 396 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Ms Sculthorpe—Yes, I believe so. I am not sure the board has discussed that specifically, but it would seem to make for very sensible risk management. Senator BOB COLLINS—Rather than ask 10 questions, does ATSIC have a general view in terms of those requirements and, to use an expression that is in favour at the moment, a minimalist approach as to what a fundamental set of sensible accountability requirements should be in terms of satisfying the end result—that is, that funds are used for the purpose for which they are intended? Ms Sculthorpe—My own view about that is that financial accountability should primarily rest with the funding agency and that a minimalist position in terms of the incorporation body should be more concerned with something fairly simple like annual financial reporting. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you. For what it is worth, that is my view too. Thanks very much. The other area that I must say interested me greatly in terms of what the review disclosed was the extraordinary number of exemptions from the requirements of the act that are there. Is the reason for that, and I assume it is, because the only way organisations have been able to get a workable situation—what we have just been talking about—is to, at the end of the day, simply be exempted formally from the requirements of the act? Ms Sculthorpe—I believe so. Senator BOB COLLINS—It seems to defeat the purpose somewhat at the end of the day. We do not come out of this shining, I have to say, but the minister of course initiated this review after 20 years. Maybe it should have been done a decade before. How many exemptions are currently in place—if you do not know you can take it on notice—in terms of those 2,600? Ms Sculthorpe—We will have to take that on notice. Senator BOB COLLINS—If you wouldn’t mind. Is it also correct that many of those exemptions are longstanding exemptions, that they extend back over a long period of years which, in effect, provide for a very long period of non-compliance? Ms Sculthorpe—I am not able to say, Senator. I could hazard a guess, but they are really questions for the registrar. Senator BOB COLLINS—I accept that they are. I thought you might have known. Mr Rees—Senator, could I note for the record that Mr Bouhafs had a meeting tonight of a statutory kind with an Aboriginal organisation, otherwise he would have been here. I pass on his apologies. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thanks. I actually think it is probably important for that to be noted. Senator Herron—In relation to that matter, Senator Collins, my understanding is that you are correct, but we will take that on notice. Mr Miller—I am director of evaluation and audit. Senator, I want to clarify one matter about these exemptions. You mentioned earlier that there is a whole range of different types of organisations incorporated under the act and the act does provide for exemptions to deal with the very things you mentioned: small organisations and the very small amounts of money they are dealing with. Whilst I am not involved closely with the registrar’s office, I do know that a significant number of the exemptions given by the office relate to those very small organisations and are an attempt to not put them under the same pressures in reporting arrangements as the bigger ones.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 397

Senator BOB COLLINS—Just to pursue that, and I honestly do not know, where that happens for totally understandable reasons because of the deficiencies of the act—and that is what they are—is there even any informal arrangement to put something else more appropriate in its place, or is it simply a total exemption from any requirements? Mr Miller—As I understand the act, the organisation can apply for exemptions from particular provisions and I know many of them do. It has been up to the registrar to either grant that request or deny it and require full compliance. But, to the best of my understanding, many of those smaller organisations do have trouble complying. Senator BOB COLLINS—I understand. The point of the question was this, and I know it is more properly a question for Mr Bouhafs but I thought again that you may know: are there situations where the registrar would say to a corporation, ‘Look, we are more than happy to exempt you from these provisions, providing you agree to put this in place.’ Mr Miller—I am not sure. I cannot answer. Senator BOB COLLINS—I will not press it. We will ask the registrar directly by way of notice, the obvious point being that if it is a case of all or nothing, it is obviously totally unsatisfactory. This question is a bit loaded. Is it correct that Mr Bouhafs was the only person to make a submission that in fact more accountability requirements should be added to the act and that more resources should consequently be made available—in fact, as I understand it, considerably more resources should be made available to his office to enforce those requirements? Ms Sculthorpe—I cannot answer the question with any accuracy. I am not sure whether the report states that. We would not have seen all of the individual submissions. Senator BOB COLLINS—I am not suggesting that the review does. I was simply asking ATSIC or anyone here whether you were aware that that was the case. Ms Sculthorpe—Not aware, no. Senator BOB COLLINS—There is a whole stack of questions here that I actually wanted to ask Mr Bouhafs, but I accept the explanation for why he is not here. We will have to do that through another other forum. Senator Herron—Could we take them on notice for you? Senator BOB COLLINS—I was just going down them, Minister. Yes, I have got a number of questions that were for Mr Bouhafs and I do not think they can be properly answered. It is unfair to expect you to answer them and I will put those on notice. The review cites the latest report from the registrar which, I quote, shows that fully 48 per cent of Aboriginal corporations had not submitted financial statements as required for the previous financial year of 1994-95. Do you know if that figure is correct? Ms Sculthorpe—I am unable to confirm that at the moment. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thanks. I understand that previous audits have actually found that up to two-thirds of the corporations were in breach of the requirements of the act. Does anyone know if it ever was the case that at some points two-thirds of all of the organisations were in breach? Ms Sculthorpe—No, not exactly. But I do believe that quite a number of organisations which may have been registered were possibly not functioning and therefore would not have submitted annual reports and so on.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 398 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator BOB COLLINS—I am aware, having talked to the employees myself, that the Katherine regional legal aid service in my own electorate told the review that from their experience corporations were almost invariably in breach because of the unrealistic requirements that the act imposed. Mr Miller—You asked about previous audits. My office has done work in regard to the registrar’s performance. I think it is fair to say that about 2½ or three years ago there was a very significant backlog and large numbers of outstanding returns in the registrar’s office. The then minister spoke to the registrar and put pressure on to have that issue addressed, and there was certainly great activity in the registrar’s office, with the help a number of commission officers, to address that situation and bring the backlog back. A lot of that backlog then was due to a need to communicate with the organisation and get an understanding of what was required rather than just strict non-compliance, and quite deliberate non-compliance. So that matter was addressed. I do not know how the situation is now, but I know that there was certainly a very big improvement about 2½ years ago. Senator BOB COLLINS—In fact, as I understand it, the task force that was set up in I think 1972—that may be the one you are talking about—actually found I think it was a 67.5 per cent non-compliance rate. I do not think they went through all the files; I think they gave up the job after they had been through half of them. Mr Miller—I am talking about a much later exercise than that. Senator BOB COLLINS—More recent than that. One of the review team is Mr Richards, who I am advised is a certified practising accountant who has actually been auditing Aboriginal corporations for 20 years. He said: Aboriginal associations appear to have been singled out for particular attention in regard to compliance and accountability. He concluded from that that a very high price was being paid for overregulation. Again, would that be ATSIC’s view? Ms Sculthorpe—It is certainly my view. Senator BOB COLLINS—Fine. I am delighted that you have been quite happy to give us your view. I referred earlier to the comparisons that were made in the review in respect of the requirements, and I think it was in fact Mr Richards in his report who noted this. I will quote briefly from it for the record. He says: The Western Australian Act makes no provision for the lodgment of annual reports and the South Australian Act requires only those associations whose receipts exceed $200,000 per annum to lodge annual reports. That is a very different situation to the requirements for Aboriginal corporations in the same states under this act. Ms Sculthorpe—Can I add, though, that organisations do have the choice of registering under state legislation if they wish. Senator BOB COLLINS—Indeed. Where I come from, the reason a lot of them don’t has got nothing whatever to do with accountability or anything else. It is just that they see the Commonwealth government as a lot friendlier to their interests than the local version. Again, Mr Chairman, I do not know whether you heard but a lot of these questions are in fact for an officer who is not here tonight, Mr Bouhafs, so we will organise for these questions to be put to him on notice.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 399

The Australian Indigenous Corporations Commission: in terms of the Tickner proposals, for want of a better word, does ATSIC have a view on the desirability or otherwise of establishing such an organisation? Ms Sculthorpe—The board was not in favour of that when it considered the issue at its October meeting. Senator BOB COLLINS—So it was considered in October. Ms Sculthorpe—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—Is it correct that the additional amount of resources necessary to implement the second wave of the Tickner proposals and to establish this commission would have been $4.5 million, in rough terms, in the first year? Ms Sculthorpe—I believe that was an estimate at one stage. Mr Sadlo—If I may expand on that question, those costings would have been done several years ago and could be a little bit dated, so perhaps they should be taken with a grain of salt. Senator BOB COLLINS—In the sense that they should be in fact increased rather than decreased? Mr Sadlo—I do not know. Senator BOB COLLINS—I cannot think of anything that has gone down in the last two years; can you? The popularity of the government, but apart from that. Mr Sadlo—As you pointed out earlier, the number of organisations that are no longer in breach has certainly come down. Senator BOB COLLINS—Are you aware—and if you are not, tell me—in terms of that $4.5 million that you have agreed with, that, again in broad terms, there was a contemplation of an additional 51 staff to actually expand the registrar’s office into a commission? Is that correct? Ms Sculthorpe—I am unable to say whether there was a contemplation. There may well have been a recommendation, but I am unable to say with any certainty. Mr Rees—I think it is fair to say that there are a lot of figures around, but that order of magnitude, which would be more than double the present staff, I think probably has been suggested by some, but I do not think we would claim that any of the estimates are very scientific. Senator BOB COLLINS—Has there ever been—this may be in the review—an authoritative estimate of the compliance costs of regulations? Mr Rees—I do not think so, if you take account of not only official time but also organisation time and all the resources that go into it. I have never seen a figure. I suspect that it would be fairly frightening. Senator BOB COLLINS—You are aware of what I am talking about. Small business associations, for example, regularly publish the costs of complying with government regulations. I was curious whether an exercise had ever been conducted by Aboriginal corporations. Ms Sculthorpe—I think the answer is no. Senator BOB COLLINS—It would be a very interesting figure. Again, from memory, the review found that, in terms of a relevant element of compliance, the ratio of staffing

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 400 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997 requirements for regulation for Aboriginal corporations was something like 60:1 as compared with standard incorporated corporations. Ms Sculthorpe—I recall reading that, yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—It is a fairly astonishing figure. The compliance costs would be interesting. A general conclusion of the review, which I know is unarguably correct, is that there is still major confusion on the ground in the communities themselves over who is responsible in real terms for ensuring that the services are delivered on the ground in the communities. The review says that this has led to an ‘unholy alliance where ATSIC invokes the registrar as its policeman in dealing with breakdowns in service delivery.’ However, the review finds that true accountability, in the sense of ensuring that a body achieves the objectives it is being funded for, is the responsibility of the funding agency. You have already said that that is your view as well. Ms Sculthorpe—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—The review concludes that there is an alternative to the current regime. According to the review, it means acknowledging that the direction taken in 1992 in trying to improve accountability was misguided. Do you agree with that conclusion? Ms Sculthorpe—Yes. Senator BOB COLLINS—You do not have to remind me who was in government at that time; I remember. The review has recommended two major courses of action. Again, to save asking 10 questions, does ATSIC have a general position in respect of what should happen? You have already said that the board has come to a conclusion that there should not be a commission established. Ms Sculthorpe—Yes. The board broadly took the view that the act should remain and that there should be amendments to bring the act up to date and make it more modern and workable but that the provisions should not be any more onerous than other similar legislation. Broadly, that is the board’s view. Senator BOB COLLINS—What is ATSIC’s position—I think Mr Schnierer referred to this earlier in the evening in terms of these different sets of accountability requirements—on this rewrite of the act and in coordinating the accountability requirements of the registrar with those requirements of ATSIC? Ms Sculthorpe—Amongst the views of the board that I neglected to mention before was the one that there be a dual reporting arrangement similar to the arrangement between the Office of Evaluation and Audit and the ATSIC board and the minister. That is the approach that the board thought would make that arrangement more workable. Senator BOB COLLINS—Do you think it would require any major review of the actual funding system that ATSIC currently has in place? Ms Sculthorpe—ATSIC’s funding systems are constantly being updated. They are the responsibility of someone other than me. Senator BOB COLLINS—You referred earlier in the evening to major upgrades of computer systems dealing with financial management and so on. Mr Schnierer—I want to clarify what you are focusing on. Is it coordination between ATSIC, the registrar and, say, OEA in relation to accountability?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 401

Senator BOB COLLINS—Correct. That is right. In consideration of what has obviously been a significant examination by ATSIC of this, will any major overhaul of ATSIC’s own systems be needed in order to coordinate the total outcome? Mr Schnierer—At this time, we have been through a major review process. We have an implementation plan going into effect now for a new set of grant procedures that are, in the general terms that I described to you, simplified and streamlined. We would, over the course of events, make that known to the registrar, who is probably fully aware of it. Obviously we have involved OEA in that process in getting their advice. On those technical matters, coordination does occur. OEA consults with us about their programs and plans in terms of audits and evaluations. I am suggesting that there is a degree of coordination and cooperation already there. Perhaps you could always look at bringing those closer together by making sure that they are the best set of practices for organisations. As I said, ATSIC’s focus has been on our own at this time. The review of the registrar’s act is only now coming to a conclusion. It is possibly time to look at those linkages. Senator BOB COLLINS—Can I just say for the advice of everybody that I will have no difficulty in finishing by 11 o’clock at the latest. If we can finish on the right side of 11 o’clock, we will do that too. Minister, I think this question is appropriately addressed to you: as I understand it, the review has actually been with the government now for about a year; is that correct? Senator Herron—It went to ATSIC for their comment and it then came from ATSIC to me two weeks ago. They have sought consultation in that period. Senator BOB COLLINS—Considering the fact, which has been re-established here tonight, that the majority of organisations that have real problems rather than perceived problems and in respect of which ATSIC, unfortunately, gets the bad press are organisations incorporated under this act—which I might add is something we have all known for years—and considering the lightning speed with which the government moved to freeze all of ATSIC’s outgoings and put a special auditor in, can you give any indication as to when the government is likely to respond to the review’s recommendations? Senator Herron—I have only just received it, as I mentioned. The board considered it at its October meeting. Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, I understand that the board of ATSIC has considered it, but do you have any idea when the government will be considering it? Senator Herron—No, I have not. As you know, we have got various reviews going. All I can say is that it will be as soon as possible because, as you say quite rightly, the review has been around for 12 months. Senator BOB COLLINS—ATSIC has indicated already that the board has reached a firm conclusion on the desirability or otherwise of setting up this new corporation or commission. And for what it is worth, which is nothing, I have too. Would you like to join the loop and tell us whether you have a view on the desirability or otherwise of responding to the review by establishing such an organisation with the quantum which has been agreed tonight—that is, additional resources of $4½ million and maybe 50 additional staff? Senator Herron—As I said to you, I have not had the opportunity to study the review. I will have to pass.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 402 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator BOB COLLINS—I think I could make a firm prediction on what the views of both the minister for finance and the Treasurer would be about that course of action; I am sure you could too. Senator Herron—I just wonder, Senator Collins, by way of comment whether you have read Peter Walsh’s book entitled Confessions of a Failed Finance Minister. Senator BOB COLLINS—I have. Senator Herron—Then I think you might have the correct response. Senator BOB COLLINS—Actually, the very first request that I ever made to the new federal Labor government, when I was then Leader of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory, was to establish SBS in Darwin. I have never forgotten that the then Minister for Communications told me that I had his full support and I thought, ‘Gee, this is easy.’ This was in the Old Parliament House. This was Mr Duffy who had one hell of a sense of humour, as I appreciated at the time. After slapping me on the back, Mr Duffy said to me, ‘You’ve got my full support. All you have to do is go down the corridor and see the finance minister, Senator Walsh, and get his support for the $2 million it will cost and tell him that I’m right behind you.’ When I spoke to Senator Walsh, he said to me, ‘You want me to give you $2 million for SBS?’ I said ‘yes’. He said, ‘Listen, mate, you’re talking to the man who wants to sell the ABC.’ I finished my cup of tea and left—he was joking, of course. Senator Herron—I met him in the corridor two weeks ago and said that the book could be reissued by a different author and with just the names changed. Senator BOB COLLINS—I used to joke about it afterwards and say, ‘If you’re going for a meeting with Peter Walsh and you want a cup of tea, you should take your own tea bags to his office.’ He was a good minister. Again, I think we can handle most of these questions on notice, Mr Chairman. CHAIR—Well done, Senator. Senator BOB COLLINS—We are doing well here. Yes, we will finish shortly. The review recommended that the current registrar’s office be reduced to 10 members with recruitment placing ‘far greater emphasis on cultural awareness and communications skills’. Is that a position that ATSIC supports? Ms Sculthorpe—The board certainly has the view that there is an important need for more education and training of organisations. Senator BOB COLLINS—Again, this is stating the obvious but it is consistent with what the special auditor himself found. The review stated: Over and over again people complained about the lack of information, training and advice on what incorporation means, and the roles and responsibilities involved. Given the level of funds handled by many indigenous corporations, and the vital services they provide, it is plainly asking for trouble not to supply them with the necessary educational services. I assume that ATSIC would agree with that. The one thing I want to invite some comment on tonight, if possible, is one of the review’s conclusions. It concluded that the proposed reforms will present ATSIC with a major challenge and pointed out: . . . it would be pointless to shift the weight of accountability from the Act and the Registrar, who cannot deliver the goods, to ATSIC, if it cannot deliver the goods. The review clearly demonstrates that the funding regime is the area where improvements are needed. Is that a conclusion of the review that the board discussed?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 403

Mr Rees—We have already acted on that, I believe. Mr Schnierer was very modest earlier on in talking about our review of grant procedures, because it is not just a question of playing with mechanics. We have actually tried to move conceptually from focusing on, if you like, financial accountability and inputs to looking more at outcomes and structuring submissions from organisations which are not just talking about dollars but what they want to do. So I think we are trying very hard to do what the review suggested. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thanks very much. Ms Turner—In relation to Aboriginal corporations, we are trialling a national pilot at the moment, which is costing us $800,000, to try to bring directors of organisations up to scratch in relation to their responsibilities under the corporate law area. Senator BOB COLLINS—Mr Chairman, I think I can place the rest of these questions on notice, and I will do so. CHAIR—That is fine, Senator. Senator BOB COLLINS—I have basically finished with the Daffen review and the Fingleton review questions. Consistent with what we discussed earlier and again to save everybody time, I will just have a quick glance at my questions on other programs. They were relatively minor by comparison. I want to talk about Aboriginal employment. I have read a number of recent statements that have been issued on employment—one by the Chairman of ATSIC, Mr Djerrkura, recently relating to CDEP. At the last Senate estimates hearings, ATSIC officers confirmed that they agreed with the assessment that, barring other interventions, the restriction of any future expansion of the CDEP scheme could lead to—and I think I am accurate in quoting the chairman’s press statement—an indigenous unemployment rate of 46.6 per cent, in broad terms 47 per cent. It is currently 39 per cent. Is that still the situation? Mr Myers—The projections that are currently in place that you are quoting are based on the last census. With the 1996 census, the figures would look far worse. We are still waiting for a detailed analysis of that and we expect to have that probably within another month from CAEPR, who is doing a detailed break down from the 1996 census for us. But, basically, if there is no movement in the general employment market for indigenous people and there is no growth in CDEP, then the prospects would look very poor. Senator BOB COLLINS—As I understand it—and again I am testing my memory here— the major investigation that was conducted recently by the ANU’s Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research concluded that, if the unemployment rate of Aboriginal Australians were brought down to equate with the general unemployment rate, it would require something like 11,000 new jobs to be created every year; is that correct? Mr Myers—I do not recall the per annum figure, but the projection was that, by the year 2006, 70,000 new jobs would need to be created, which is basically doubling the number of Aboriginal people currently employed. Senator BOB COLLINS—That is quite a challenge. Another conclusion of that same investigation, as I recall it, was that up to 1993, largely as a result of the implementation of CDEP schemes, there had been an increase in employment. I think the national increase over the same period was 1.7 per cent and there was a figure quoted in excess of six per cent of additional employment being created in Aboriginal communities over that same period; is that correct?

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 404 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Mr Myers—Yes, there was a large growth in Aboriginal employment, basically directly attributable to CDEP growth. Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, I thought that was the case. Potentially, that growth percentage is going to go the other way over the period of time that we are now looking at. Mr Myers—Yes, as the population increases and if there is no employment growth, either CDEP or other, then certainly the figures will go backwards. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, as I understand it, you received the report of the Evatt review of the heritage protection act in August last year. I understand that in Geneva in July this year the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations was told that you expect to introduce legislation stemming from that into the parliament by the end of this year. Is that still the case? You understand why I am asking the question; knowing what we have in front of us in four weeks. Senator Herron—It was our intention. The Prime Minister has been writing to me regularly about what the hold-up is. I have been seeking extensions. In fact, I have just written to him seeking another extension to finalise that report. Senator BOB COLLINS—Can you share with us the new date? Senator Herron—I really should have the officers here with me, but they have gone. Senator BOB COLLINS—You could take that on notice. Senator Herron—From memory, I expect it will be next year in June. That is my advice. Senator BOB COLLINS—I will not hold you to that, Minister. Memory is an unreliable— Senator Herron—Yes, especially mine, Senator Collins. Senator BOB COLLINS—For your benefit and for the purpose of getting finished tonight, I have already corrected the record. I wanted to give you the courtesy, but you were not in the room, that your recollection of the provisions of the Reconciliation Commission Act was correct. Senator Herron—I read it three times before taking any action whatsoever so that I followed due process. That is why I was confident. Senator BOB COLLINS—I just wanted to take the opportunity to reiterate what I have already put on the record. I absolutely agree that you have followed due process precisely in that regard. Senator Herron—Thank you. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, considering the answers we have just received on unemployment and considering the fact that you yourself have repeatedly nominated that they will be redressed, I wonder if you could respond to that. Again, I might add that health, education and employment are the major priorities of this government. Of course, the reason that I wanted to highlight the substantial growth proportionally in Aboriginal employment for whatever reason, CDEP or otherwise, that occurred under the previous government is in response to your continued assertion that whatever happened in 13 years was a barren wilderness and that you will redress all of this. I wonder if you could respond to the advice that has just been given to the committee, again by ATSIC, that on the current projections— based on the conclusions of that independent analysis that has just been done—we are likely to have an indigenous unemployment rate of 47 per cent in not too many years ahead. In other words, it is getting worse not better.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 405

Senator Herron—Yes, it is the demographics, as you well know. The increase in young Aboriginal people is quite phenomenal. Senator BOB COLLINS—There is a good reason for that, Minister. Senator Herron—I do not want to go into the reasons. Senator BOB COLLINS—The reason is that Aboriginal people like kids. Senator Herron—Yes, but they are not alone in that, Senator Collins. Senator BOB COLLINS—I do not suggest that they are alone either. There are a great many Australians who would rather see the trailer sailer in the front yard than have an extra couple of kids. Leaving the demographics aside, Minister, the question I am asking is a real one based on your own statement. I understand the break-up of all of that and why, but you did qualify your commitment to me in a sense. You said that your government would reverse the spiralling unemployment of Aboriginal Australians in contrast to the previous government. Senator Herron—We did not use those words, Senator Collins, with respect. Let us not get into the semantics. What I did was appoint Ian Spicer to do a review. I am awaiting his report shortly. I thought he could give us an overview. He is somebody who, as you know, has a number of attributes, apart from his membership of the Reconciliation Council. He is doing a report for me, and I am happy to provide that when it comes. It is a major problem. I do not dispute those statistics. The paradox is that, at the same time as we have these dramatic increases in young people, the Australian population as a whole is ageing so rapidly. I think, in another six years, one in six will be over the age of 65 in this population and, by 2016, one in four will be over 80. I just find those statistics almost unbelievable, but they are the statistics. I doubt if I will be around in 2016, but if I am I will be in that group: one in four of the population. That is the paradox that we have to face. It is obviously in everybody’s interests to get these people employed. We are going to need them. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, I would be the last person to suggest that because of the lack of employment opportunities in isolated communities, whether they are Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, it is an easy thing to solve. Senator Herron—I do not think you do, but I am saying that certainly there will have to be resources diverted, if necessary. I am happy to go into bat before that dreaded ERC. We did get somewhere with them last time in that regard. Senator BOB COLLINS—In terms of the statements—indeed, your oft repeated statements—that Labor failed to increase indigenous employment during its term of government, which is what you did say, I put on the record that a great deal of that was CDEP. CHAIR—It is. Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, it is. The analysis that was done by ANU, as you know, actually showed an increase in the employment rate over those years. What I wanted to know is this: are you confident that, in terms of your own statements and the situation we have just discussed and agreed on, your government will be able to do what you say it will; that is, reverse the situation? Senator Herron—The difficulty will be, because of that rapidly ageing population, to prove it because, as a proportion of the employed, the indigenous will occupy a greater proportion of the young unemployed. So that is why I mentioned this rapidly ageing population. It is going to be difficult to prove anything.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION F&PA 406 SENATE—Legislation Wednesday, 12 November 1997

Senator BOB COLLINS—I will finish on this. I will just take one obvious factor. As you know, there are thousands of Aboriginal Australians who unarguably qualify, because of their situation, for social security benefits. That is without an argument—genuine. They are entitled to those benefits. As you know, they choose—indeed, until very recent times they were the only Australians who had done so—to voluntarily work for those benefits. Senator Herron—Yes—20 years. Senator BOB COLLINS—Do you not then concede, Minister, rightly or wrongly and for whatever reasons, that your own government’s policy decision, an actual decision, to restrict the CDEP budget—which, in real terms, is just social security payments by another name—and reduce the expansion of the CDEP scheme will, as concluded by the analysis and confirmed again here tonight, substantially add to the unemployment problem, not detract from it? Senator Herron—Senator Collins, as you well know, we were forced into that situation because, when we inherited government, not only did we have a record overseas debt but we had a $10.3 billion deficit and $70 billion in deficits in the four previous budgets as well. So we had to face that problem. Senator BOB COLLINS—Minister, the needle has worn out on that one. Senator Herron—I am just putting the other side of the coin. Senator BOB COLLINS—I am not disputing here tonight whether or not that is true. All I am saying is, accepting all those things as givens, Minister, do you agree with the evidence that has been given here again tonight and the analysis of the report that, for whatever reason, the restriction in the expansion of the CDEP scheme, on current parameters, is going to lead to a dramatic increase in unemployment? Senator Herron—Yes, unless that can be changed, and that is what I am hoping to do. I must pay tribute to you, Senator Collins, before we finish. One of the things that I have learned from you, both at this estimates and in the Senate itself, is the reinforcing of that statement that you made about the benefits to which Aboriginal are entitled, as is every other Australian. You have brought home to me the significance of that. I thought I should put that on the record too. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thanks, Minister. Indeed, that reminds me of my final question—this will be the last and I will put the rest on notice. I freely concede that I am as much at fault in this as anyone because you actually invited me to do something which, despite the fact that I have met with you since in your office, I have not had time to do. It is on that question, rebutting the myths. You will recall we had a ‘remitting the butts’. You did tell me that the work had been done, that it was a long document and you actually did say to me—and I appreciated it—that perhaps I could have a go at subediting the document. Senator Herron—I am happy to do that. Senator BOB COLLINS—Can you tell me where it is at? Senator Herron—I am happy to because I have been trying to ride this through. We thought we were there and then the last act was to get the cartoons to accompany it. Petty is the cartoonist. You could expect no better cartoonist. Senator BOB COLLINS—Has he agreed to do it again? Senator Herron—Yes. Petty obviously knows a fair bit about Aboriginal affairs, but I discovered that some of the cartoons—not all; some were brilliant—did not portray what we were hoping to portray; that is, to dispel the myths. I will not go into it in great detail. So I

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Wednesday, 12 November 1997 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 407 sent some of the cartoons back. Just to give you a concrete example, he had a little flag with CDEP to dispel the myths out in the wider community. I am sure, except for those aficionados and people involved, nobody would know what CDEP stood for. So I wanted that altered. It is that sort of detail. But could I say that it is almost there. Senator BOB COLLINS—Is the text concluded to your satisfaction? Senator Herron—The text is good, yes. It is really only the cartoons. I did ask the officers this morning where we are at the moment and, as far as I am aware, it is only the cartoons. Mr Rees—It is dependent on the cartoons, as the minister said. I had hoped to know tonight, but I do not yet know when Petty is going to get back to us on that. Senator BOB COLLINS—No, that is okay. Senator Herron—I am keen like you. Senator BOB COLLINS—It was just the minister’s response about the CDEP thing that prompted me to ask. I have asked it every single estimates. Senator Herron—I did not know it existed until you brought it to our attention. Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you, Minister. CHAIR—Thank you, Minister, and thank you, officers. Committee adjourned at 10.57 p.m.

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION