SENATE Official Committee Hansard...Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Mr Philip Moss, Assistant Inspector General Department of Finance— Mr Peter Hamburger,

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE

Official Committee Hansard

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONLEGISLATION COMMITTEE

(Consideration of Estimates)

TUESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 1996

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATECANBERRA 1996

Tuesday, 22 October 1996 SENATE—Legislation F&PA 529

SENATE

Tuesday, 22 October 1996

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Portfolios: Parliament; Prime Minister and Cabinet; Finance (including AdministrativeServices)

Members: Senator Ian Macdonald(Chair), Senators Heffernan, Lundy, Murray, Ray andWatson

Participating members: Senators Abetz, Bishop, Bolkus, Brown, Bob Collins, Cooney, Evans,Faulkner, Harradine, Margetts, Minchin, Neal, Ray, Reynolds, Schacht, Sherry and TamblingSenator Kernot for the consideration of the 1996-97 Budget estimatesSenator Murphy for the consideration of the 1996-97 Budget supplementary estimates

The committee met at 9.07 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINETProposed expenditure, $978,599,000 (Document A).Proposed provision, $10,267,000 (Document B).Expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, $2,691,275 (Document D).Consideration resumed from 23 September.

In AttendanceSenator Hill, Minister for the EnvironmentDepartment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—

Mr Greg Wood, Deputy SecretaryGovernment Support Services

Mr Martin Bonsey, First Assistant Secretary, Government DivisionMr David Ritchie, Acting First Assistant Secretary, International DivisionMr Roger Bagley, Director, Ceremonial and Hospitality Unit, International Division

Special Policy and Program FunctionsMs Kathleen Townsend, First Assistant Secretary, Office of the Status of WomenMr Peter Vaughan, First Assistant Secretary, Office of Indigenous Affairs

Corporate ServicesMr Richard Mills, First Assistant Secretary, Corporate Services DivisionMs Clare Nairn, Assistant Secretary, Corporate Support Branch, Corporate Services DivisionMr Gerry Linehan, Director, Financial Management Section, Corporate Services Division

Public Administration and AccountabilityPublic Service and Merit Protection Commission

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

F&PA 530 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 22 October 1996

Mr Alan Doolan, Team Leader, Internal Support TeamOffice of the Commonwealth Ombudsman

Ms Linda Atkinson, Senior Assistant OmbudsmanOffice of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security

Mr Philip Moss, Assistant Inspector GeneralDepartment of Finance—

Mr Peter Hamburger, Acting Assistant Secretary, Central Agencies BranchMr Roger Hollis, Senior Officer, Indigenous Affairs SectionCHAIR —I welcome the minister and his officers and my colleagues. This is the

supplementary hearing to consider answers to questions on notice or other matters relating tothe proposed expenditure of which members and participating members have given notice thatthey wish to pursue. I think all members of the committee and the minister and his staff havea copy of the program order and the matters that various senators have indicated they wishto pursue.

The order of proceedings are as set out on the sheet. That order of proceedings has beenunanimously agreed by the committee, so I am hopeful that we might be able to run prettyclosely to that timetable. With any luck, we will be finished on time. I see that the programorder does not have times in it, but the times have been agreed unanimously. We are hopefulthat we will finish by about 9 p.m.

It is anticipated that from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. we will be with the Department of the PrimeMinister and Cabinet and from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. with the Department of Finance, continuingafter a one-hour lunch break at 2 o’clock with the Department of Administrative Services. Weare looking at having dinner between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. From 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. we will havethe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.

Minister, did you want to say anything before we start?Senator Hill—No.CHAIR —In that event, there are some general questions before we going on to program

1. Senator Ray has nominated some matters in the general area, so I might call on him first.He is now a regular member of this committee so he takes priority.

Senator ROBERT RAY—The first area I reserved we went over last time. When youtransferred three areas out, EPAC transferred at 100 per cent resources, the Office of the ChiefScientist at 70 per cent and the Office of Multicultural Affairs at 50 per cent for one year only.I have noticed subsequently in evidence given in another committee that several other areaswere also transferred to Treasury at 100 per cent resources. I posed the question and I wantto ask it again: how can we be sure that in the budget process there is fairness and equity intreatment of departments when every time Treasury gets resources transferred to it it goes at100 per cent and everyone else seems to take a cut on the way through? Would you like tocomment on that, Minister?

Senator Hill—I do not think fairness and equity is the driving influence. The drivinginfluence is the goals of the government and the efficient administration that is necessary toachieve those goals. I am not sure that you are technically right in all instances.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Can you give me an example where Treasury has pickedsomething up and not got 100 per cent transfer of resources?



Senator Hill—I do not know about a function as such. Certainly in several instances thesame burden has been upon them to resource internally what might be included as extraprojects.

Senator ROBERT RAY—You would have to say that Treasury is a big importer ratherthan an exporter of supervision and powers at the moment. It has never been so powerful sincethe Department of Finance was hived away.

Senator Hill—You are particularly referring to the Productivity Commission, presumably.Senator ROBERT RAY—I think there were one or two others that went across in the

administrative arrangements.Senator Hill—Certainly the Productivity Commission amalgam of a number of different

organisations, including two from outside of the Treasury, was amalgamated not to giveTreasury more power. Again, we believe that there was a certain amount of duplicationbetween these organisations and that, furthermore, they should have an overall responsibilityand be driven by the goal of productivity that we announced before the election. Therefore,we believed an amalgamation of the three organisations could more effectively deliver thegoals that we were seeking.

As to why they should be located within Treasury, primarily, accepting that responsibility,it was there where they could most usefully provide influence towards the government’sobjective. Certainly, that was not designed with the objective of giving Treasury more power.As I am reminded, the amalgamation of EPAC, the Industry Commission and the Bureau ofIndustry Economics will yield savings of $2.3 million in this budget, $5.1 million in thefollowing year and $5.2 million in the following year. So that just confirms what I said aboutthe objective of savings. The note also tells me that it will reduce overlap and duplication,so I must have been right again.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Let us assume you are right on that. Good luck to you if youare. Therefore, what you are saying is that there are two imperatives. One is better policycoordination, which I can fully understand. The second is that the duplication is eliminated,which asks the question: why a 100 per cent transfer of resources, everything going toTreasury, when savings are going to be made? Or are Treasury, in fact, going to cut outduplication, make their savings there and not bear the same sort of productivity or, if you like,productivity dividend that the rest of the departments are going to bear? Your answer hassuggested to me that there will be savings, yet Treasury have not offered up those savings;they have just had a 100 per cent transfer from other departments.

Senator Hill—The goal overall is government saving. I do not know that dividing it outbetween departments and claiming success or otherwise, depending on who is forgoing income,is really a particularly helpful way of looking at how the government is seeking to achieveits overall objectives.

Senator ROBERT RAY—If you are Treasury and you pick up three or four areas fromother departments and you get a 100 per cent transfer of resources from those departmentsand then, by eliminating duplication, you make savings and offer up those savings in thebudget process, surely you are getting an advantage you are not allowing other departments.Why not transfer it if these savings are there at 60 per cent or 70 per cent of resources?

Senator Hill—I have to say that I am not sure exactly how it will work between, inparticular, industry and Treasury. As I said, what is more important from a governmentperspective is to see not only that greater efficiencies and better focus are achieved but also



that these savings are achieved and they are being achieved from what was an amalgam ofthe previous costs of these three bodies.

What you are arguing is: how do I work out exactly which department bears the burden ofthe $5.2 million? I do not know that it is a particularly constructive debate outside of publicsector circumstances. It may well be an interesting discussion of perceived power or influenceof particular departments, but what is more important to the department is that we achieve thesavings we have outlined in total expenditure and we achieve the objectives in greaterefficiency and better focus.

Senator ROBERT RAY—I was trying to establish a couple of things. The first was whetherit is fair that Treasury, in its very strong position in the ERC and government, is able to makearrangements for itself that differ from others. In other words, other departments are expectedto set the example when making savings and items are transferred from one department toanother, but Treasury does not set an example. The second point I was making was this: byaccepting all these transferred resources and then rationalising, is Treasury going to offer upthose savings rather than the harder type of savings that every other department is expectedto offer up in the efficiency dividend?

Senator Hill—Treasury has offered up those so-called efficiency dividends. Beyond that,as I think we discussed in the previous estimates meeting, it was really a focus on theprograms and the outcomes that we sought. Then there is the question of what would beneeded to achieve those goals. Rather than being driven from a view of every department beingequal and having to deliver the same savings from programs which might lead to a distortedoutcome from the point of view of our objectives, we have sought to identify the programsthat we believe are necessary to achieve our objectives as a government and then look at thequestion of what is necessary to pay for them.

If, in a comparison of departments, it appears that Treasury has benefited as against othersthen I think that is rather a reflection on the goals we are seeking to achieve and the programsthat we believe are necessary to achieve those goals. Every department is expected to operateefficiently. The pressure has been significantly on for savings. If it therefore seems, on theface of it, that Treasury has copped less, I would simply suggest that that is a reflection ofthe importance that the government has placed upon the programs that it has to administer.

Senator ROBERT RAY—I think the point is that if you get 100 per cent transfer ofresources they are unable to make easy savings. The savings task of Treasury is a lot easierthan that of other departments. Therefore, they do not have to go through the same pain orinflict the same pain on themselves as maybe your own department or the department you arerepresenting today has to.

Senator Hill—When we calculated the financial impacts, in terms of the savings I mentioneda moment ago, I presume that was on the basis of a total transfer to Treasury and then areduction off that figure. I am not sure if there is anyone here who can confirm that. Eitherway, it does not strike me that it is so important. If you take it off industry, for example,before you transfer it across, I do not see how government or the people get a greater benefitout of that than transferring it all across to Treasury and then taking it off.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Then why not transfer 100 per cent of resources from OMA and100 per cent of resources from the Chief Scientist and then deduct it at the other end? Thatis the inconsistency. Can you guarantee that other immigration programs are not going to behurt, given that only 50 per cent of the funding is transferred for one year only so that when



the Department of Immigration has to undertake the full costs of OMA it will not have to diginto other areas of Immigration and hurt some of those programs to fund it?

Senator Hill—The programs the following the year will stand the assessment of the budgetprocess that is about to start. I think I understand the point you are making. You start off withthe perception of additional financial pressure, but basically the government will approach itas I have just outlined. In the case of immigration it has goals and it will seek the programsand the funding necessary to achieve those goals.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Minister, could you at least alert the officers of Prime Ministerand Cabinet to consider these issues so we can look at them again at additional estimates—notat length, but as to the rationale. Why has the Treasury got 100 per cent, Chief Scientist 70and OMA 50, and how are the savings therefore generated down the track? We can exploreit then when some of them may have had a look at it.

Senator Hill—Okay.Senator LUNDY—An answer to a question taken on notice by the department in relation

to travel to Sydney by staff of official establishments indicates that there was a substantial risein travel. Is this trend occurring across the whole department or perhaps in other specificprograms as a result of the Prime Minister being based in Sydney?

Mr Wood —The two areas of the department that would be most likely to be affected wouldbe official establishments and the cabinet secretariat. I do not have figures for the departmentas a whole. I doubt if for the department as a whole it would be significantly greater outsidethose two specific areas.

Senator LUNDY—Could you provide details for programs 1, 2 and 4 of travel to Sydneyby staff of the department for the previous financial year and differentiate between those priorto March and those after 2 March, as well as any travel that may have been undertaken in thisfinancial year?

Senator Hill—We could do that, but we would, presumably, make the point that we madeon the last occasion—that these costs should be looked at against the background of the totalcost of running official establishments, which we would claim has been significantly reduced.

Mr Wood —Can I clarify that? You said programs 1 and 2?Senator LUNDY—The whole of programs 1, 2 and 4.Mr Wood —So every travel to Sydney undertaken by the department over two years?Senator LUNDY—Only going back to last financial year.Mr Wood —But do you not want to compare the increase?CHAIR —If Senator Lundy does not, I would.Senator Hill—I do not think you are looking for details of every individual trip, are you?

Are you wanting sufficient figures to see whether it is going up and, if so, by how much?Senator LUNDY—Yes, that is the general idea.Mr Wood —You were good enough at the earlier hearing to make that same request and

then agree not to pursue it. It is a lot of work. Is it essential?Senator LUNDY—I would not be asking the question if I did not think it was important.Senator Hill—Would you clarify what you want?Senator LUNDY—The last financial year of 1995-96 and from the start of this financial

year.



Senator Hill—You want a figure of the travel between Canberra and Sydney of staff ofofficial establishments.

Mr Wood —No, I think it is the whole department, in effect.Senator Hill—I am asking for clarification.Senator LUNDY—Programs 1, 2 and 4.Senator Hill—If it is all computerised, it is not so bad. But, if we have to go back and start

checking vouchers for every trip from everyone in this department over a period of twoyears—

Senator LUNDY—Perhaps Mr Wood could advise us as to the resource implications of thatand whether in fact it is computerised and that data can be extracted relatively efficiently.

Mr Wood —Certainly. I think some of it is computerised. Car trips are not computerisedbut we will see how we go.

CHAIR —Can I just be clear on exactly what is being asked for, again.Senator Hill—I think it is the cost of travel between Sydney and Canberra, both ways, of

officers of this department for the years beginning at the last financial year. But you are reallywanting to check it since the March election, aren’t you?

Senator LUNDY—You would appreciate, Minister, that it would be interesting to be ableto do some comparisons at this point in time next year. Unless we have something to compareit with for the full previous financial year when the minister was based in Canberra, there willnot be any real comparisons. But you are quite right: the issue is the increase in the travel,and theoretically to make that assessment from March would be reasonable, but that wouldnot provide us with a full year comparison. I have asked Mr Wood the resource implicationsof that. If there are serious ones, I am happy to modify my question, because I do not wantthe department spending all of their time finding a response to this question. But I still wouldlike the information so that we are in a position to make those comparisons at some other time.

Mr Wood —Would you find person trips as against every dollar and cent acceptable?Senator LUNDY—Yes, that would give us an indication, as opposed to the petrol vouchers

and packets of chips on the way.CHAIR —How long is that likely to take the department? Is that a big job?Senator Hill—We are not sure.Senator LUNDY—Do you computerise that information?Mr Wood —I would need to take advice on that, Mr Chairman. I think, in fact, it is possible

the airlines had our records computerised, though we did change airlines during the periodin question. I do not think we ourselves computerised the details of every trip. It is a matterof form filling out.

Mr Linehan —We would have to go through each of the records, including registers, tocheck—and marry them up with any airline accounts as well, and catch up on any motorvehicle trips separately.

CHAIR —I wonder if you could roughly keep an idea of the cost to the department inlooking for this information. I think we did get details before that there was half a billiondollars in savings. Is that correct?

Mr Wood —Not half a billion.CHAIR —It was half a million.



Mr Wood —We are pretty good at that.CHAIR —What is a ‘b’ between friends! I would hate to see all those savings lost to the

department in addition to all the department time spent in looking for these things.Senator LUNDY—Would it be easier if you just provided the person trips and did not have

to match them up against accounting, just so we can get an indicative idea of what trips areactually occurring? Would that place less strain on your already stretched resources?

Mr Wood —It would somewhat. Senator Lundy, when do you want these by? Do you wantthem when the final report is tabled in the Senate, or do you just want them some time in thenext 12 months?

Senator LUNDY—I have already indicated the purpose for which I am asking, which isfor comparisons down the track. So obviously there is no urgency for the response.

CHAIR —It might be of some help to the department if that could be done before we getto estimates next time. Any more questions, Senator Lundy?

Senator LUNDY—Only on specific subprograms.Senator FAULKNER—I understand that the issue I wanted to raise, Mr Chairman, has been

specifically reserved; it is not in general questions; it is program 1.CHAIR —If you do not mind, we might just keep on. Senator Ray, do you have anything

more of a general nature?Senator ROBERT RAY—No.CHAIR —We will move to program 1. Senator Ray?Senator ROBERT RAY—I will defer to my leader.CHAIR —Senator Faulkner, we do have a rule that we ask the regular members first, which

is why I did that but, if everyone else is agreeable, I will ask you first.[9.33 a.m.]

Program 1—Departmental policy coordinationSenator FAULKNER—I want to ask some questions about the Prime Minister’s guide

entitledA Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility. Firstly, I thought it would beuseful, Senator Hill, if you could inform the committee of the origins of the guide.

Senator Hill—I understand that the guide was prepared on the instructions of the PrimeMinister. It was prepared within the department for his consideration. It drew upon previousguides, but I think it went a little beyond those guides when it looked at such issues asministerial staff conduct, parliamentary business and the like.

Senator FAULKNER—Whose idea was it, Minister?Senator Hill—I understand that it was the Prime Minister’s idea.Senator FAULKNER—You indicated that it was prepared on the instructions of the Prime

Minister. Which officers in Prime Minister and Cabinet were given the responsibility ofactually writing the guide? I understand from what you are suggesting that the guide waswritten on the instructions of the Prime Minister, not written by the Prime Minister. Couldwe have some information as to who was actually responsible for writing the guide?

Senator Hill—What section?Mr Bonsey—Immediately following the election, a coordination task was undertaken by

the government division in the context of the activity.



Senator FAULKNER—I see. Did the Prime Minister actually provide a framework for theguide? What was the guidance that the coordination task force—if that is the right word—wasgiven?

Mr Bonsey—It was not a special task force; it was just part of the ongoing work of thegovernment division.

Senator FAULKNER—What was the guidance that the department had for the developmentof the guide?

Senator Hill—I do not think the Prime Minister wrote specific terms of reference for thistask.

Senator FAULKNER—I thank you for that information, but could you perhaps outline tothe committee what guidance the Prime Minister did give. I appreciate the point you aremaking that there were no specific terms of reference, but I would be interested in knowingwhat guidance he did give.

Senator Hill—Through the various lines of communication no doubt the officers becameaware of what the Prime Minister had in mind. A lot was said about this issue before theelection, during the election and after the election.

Senator FAULKNER—Let me ask my question in a different way. How were the officersaware of what the Prime Minister had in mind?

Senator Hill—Anyone in Australia who was interested in the subject would have had a fairidea of what the Prime Minister had in mind, and presumably these very astute officers pickedup the sentiment of what the Prime Minister was seeking. Are you asking whom he spoke to,who spoke to somebody else and so on—because I find that extraordinary, actually.

Senator FAULKNER—I appreciate that the Prime Minister is not here himself to answerthe question.

Senator Hill—Did he write a memo—is that what you are asking?Senator FAULKNER—Any of that information would be helpful to the committee, Senator

Hill. I have asked a general question about the guidance he gave. You have indicated to thecommittee that the guide was prepared on the instructions of the Prime Minister. I am nowasking how those instructions were communicated to the Department of Prime Minister andCabinet so they could develop the guide.

Mr Wood —I am not sure that internal advice is relevant to this committee, is it?CHAIR —That is the position that I took at the first meeting.Senator Hill—It would be a new experience for all of us if at these committees ministers

were required to detail how their morning meetings within the office operate and who is giventhe task of briefing whom and so forth. The important thing is that it was the Prime Minister’sdecision to produce a guide, the Prime Minister signed off on the guide, and this is the guideunder the—

Senator ROBERT RAY—Did he just read the cover and not the contents?Senator Hill—On the cover it says, ‘Prime Minister, Canberra, April 1996.’ The foreword

was signed by John Howard on 4 April 1996.Senator ROBERT RAY—It is just that—if you do not mind my interrupting—in the middle

of a bit of a brouhaha last week on the7.30 Report, the Prime Minister said, ‘as I read theguidelines’, almost as though he was detached from the formation of them. That is why we



are trying to find out what the Prime Minister’s involvement was in actually giving guidancethat these were the principles he wanted.

Senator Hill—I think that is a way of expressing it because, although we sign off and agreeto a document, and we might like it always to say what we intend, we also have to stand bywhat its literal interpretation is.

CHAIR —Some of the previous ministers did not even read what they signed off on.Senator Hill—It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that, Mr Chairman.Senator FAULKNER—Did the Prime Minister give written instructions, written directions

or written guidance in any form to officers of the Department of the Prime Minister andCabinet for the preparation of this guide?

Senator Hill—Again, I think that that is a matter of the internal running of the PrimeMinister’s office and his relationship with his officers; and such internal workings have neverbeen within the province of estimates committees. I really do not see that it is relevant. It maybe interesting, but it is not relevant. This is the Prime Minister’s document. He stands by it.

Senator FAULKNER—These are all matters of opinion. I consider it both interesting andrelevant. I think it is certainly by no means beyond the bounds of the sort of information thathas been sought and given at any number of estimates committees in any number of portfoliosby any number of ministers over a very long period of time. I would have thought, given theprinciples of ministerial accountability that have been high on the public mind, that it is aperfectly reasonable question to expect you to answer. If you are unable to answer it—andI appreciate you may be—officers at the table can indicate the sort of guidance that they hadfrom the Prime Minister in relation to the development of the guide.

Senator Hill—It is not a question as to whether the officers have that information. Thequestion is whether it is properly within the province of an estimates committee, and I do notthink it is. If we had come along to an estimates committee and asked for the procedures thatMr Keating took each morning to brief his staff, what time he started, who was present at themeetings, et cetera, I think we would have been laughed at.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Are you saying that never happened?Senator Hill—I would be surprised if it did, and I would be surprised if we got an answer.Senator FAULKNER—I am asking a very different question. I am not asking about the

briefing of staff or anything else; I am asking a question relating to the workings of theDepartment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I am asking simply whether the Prime Ministerprovided written instructions, written direction or written guidance for the development of aguide on key elements of ministerial responsibility. I do not think any reasonable person couldsuggest that that question is not an appropriate one to be answered by you or an officer at thetable.

CHAIR —I could, and I think Senator Hill has already answered that. It is up to SenatorHill as to whether he wants to pursue it. Senator Faulkner, if you are just going to keep askingthe same questions and if Senator Hill is going to keep refusing to answer, then we might aswell save ourselves all the trouble and move on to the next question. Are there any otherquestions?

Senator FAULKNER—I am waiting for Senator Hill to respond.Senator Hill—I do not think I should go beyond what I have said, which is that the Prime

Minister instructed the document to be prepared, the document was prepared and the Prime



Minister accepted it. If you are talking about ministerial responsibility, I presume you aretalking about responsibility of ministers to comply with it. The drafting of it, which officerdid what and the detail of their instructions strikes me as totally irrelevant. The documentstands. The Prime Minister stands by it, and we are obliged to comply with it.

Senator FAULKNER—Could I ask whether the guidance given by the Prime Minister wasin written or verbal form.

Senator Hill—You can ask, but I decline to answer.Senator FAULKNER—When were the instructions from the Prime Minister received by

the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and when was work on the developmentof the guide commenced within the department?

Senator Hill—Instructions were given post election, and work obviously commenced quicklybecause the document is dated 4 April 1996. We do not hide the fact that it was a priority ofthe government and a priority of the Prime Minister.

Senator FAULKNER—I appreciate that the work commenced after the election. Can anofficer of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet indicate a date on which workcommenced on the development of the guide?

Senator Hill—That is a question for the workings of the Prime Minister’s office and therelationship between him and his department. It is totally irrelevant, I would have thought.This is an interesting frolic. The Senate is not even attempting to establish any relevance tothe question of whether ministers are complying with the guidelines.

Senator FAULKNER—That is a separate issue, but here at the estimates this matter hasbeen reserved, as you know. I would have thought the questions are clearly in order and quiteappropriate. If you refuse to answer them, for whatever reasons, if you have determined tocover up on these issues, so be it. That is a matter for you.

Senator Hill—There is no question of cover-up. I have said that I am standing by what Iunderstand to be a long established practice; that is, the internal workings of the minister’soffice are not within the province of the committee. His way of doing business with hisdepartment is not either.

Senator FAULKNER—When was work completed by the Department of the Prime Ministerand Cabinet and the guide to key elements of responsibility returned for the perusal of thePrime Minister?

Senator Hill—Work was completed in time for the Prime Minister to date this document4 April.

Senator FAULKNER—I appreciate that. Could I ask when the department concluded itswork and how the department communicated the draft guide? Did the department put forwarda draft guide for the Prime Minister’s consideration?

Senator Hill—It is always a draft until it is accepted.Senator FAULKNER—Thank you for that, Minister. So the Prime Minister received a draft

from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I did ask you when he received thatdraft. Would one of the officers be able to enlighten the committee on that point?

Senator Hill—No. I think, again, it is irrelevant as to whether he got it one day, three daysor a week before he signed off on it. Some ministers work more efficiently and effectivelythan others.



Senator ROBERT RAY—He was never going to read it anyway. So it does not matterwhether it was one day, three days or a week.

Senator Hill—Who was never going to read it?Senator ROBERT RAY—The Prime Minister.

Senator Hill—Why do you say that?Senator ROBERT RAY—Otherwise he would have enforced it if he had bothered to read

it. Even last week he had to read from it to know what was in it.Senator Hill—It is 28 pages of detail. It is one thing reading it; it is another thing knowing

it off by heart. The point is: the department prepared a draft document which the PrimeMinister accepted. Whether he accepted it with or without variations, I do not know. But,again, I would argue that that is a matter of internal workings.

Senator FAULKNER—I assume that the draft guide went to the Prime Minister with acovering brief. Would that be right?

Senator Hill—I do not know.Senator FAULKNER—Could you ask perhaps one of the officers at the table if they might

be able to assist you?Senator Hill—No, I will not. Again, I think this is a matter of internal workings. The point

is—I really think that this frolic is somewhat irrelevant—that this is the Prime Minister’sdocument. Things might have been different in the past, but this is a Prime Minister who doesread these things.

Senator FAULKNER—This morning the government is also quite clearly involved in amost extraordinary cover-up of information that, it seems to me, is quite appropriate to begiven to this Senate estimates committee and is on the public record. I would be interestedin knowing—

Senator Hill—There is no question of a cover-up.Senator FAULKNER—It is a cover-up, Minister, because the questions I am asking are

perfectly reasonable questions.Senator Hill—Whenever you do not get the answer you want you say that it is a cover-up.Senator FAULKNER—They are the sorts of questions that have been answered time and

time again by other ministers and other officers at the table at any number of estimatescommittees and you know that to be the case, and you know it to be nothing more or less thana cover-up.

Senator Hill—I do not accept that.Senator FAULKNER—Let me ask this question, because I am interested in knowing the

answer: when the Prime Minister received the draft guide from the Department of the PrimeMinister and Cabinet, did he make any changes to the draft before making it public and tablingit in the parliament?

CHAIR —Senator Faulkner, I think Senator Hill has indicated that he is not going to answerthose sorts of questions.

Senator FAULKNER—This has not been asked of him before.CHAIR —We started at 25 minutes past. So under our little rule we have in the committee

I might just briefly interrupt you and see if any other committee members have any questions.Senator Watson? Senator Heffernan?



Senator HEFFERNAN—How do our guidelines compare to the previous government’sguidelines?

Mr Bonsey—The element that is I think different about these guidelines is the collation ofa range of different subject matter in the one fairly short document to the extent that they dealwith things like cabinet processes, executive council processes, ministerial travel, ministerialconduct. There is a range of different things which in the past have been otherwise dealt within correspondence. The reference to divestment of shares is, for example, very similar to whatwas in the previousCabinet Handbook.

Senator FAULKNER—Could I ask a follow-up question?Senator HEFFERNAN—I have a follow-up question. Were the details of the workings of

the Prime Minister’s department and the relationship between the Prime Minister and his staffin the department made available in the way that is being sought today to previous opposition?

Senator Hill—I have given you my recollection. Senator Faulkner disputes it. I rememberrunning into many brick walls over 15 years when I crossed the boundary into internalworkings of ministers’ offices and their relationship with their department.

CHAIR —Is advice given by officials to a minister as part of a policy making processusually given at estimates committees?

Senator Hill—No.Senator FAULKNER—Would it be fair to say, Minister, that theGuide on Key Elements

of Ministerial Responsibilityis basically nothing more or less than a consolidation of the rulesand standards that applied to the Fraser, Hawke and Keating administrations?

Senator Hill—I am not sure where the detail there is. As the officer has said, it is a collationof a number of different guides in the past and—

Senator FAULKNER—What I am asking is: what is new about the guide?Senator Hill—Is there any particular part that you want to be compared with the provisions

of the previous guidelines?Senator FAULKNER—The Prime Minister, as you know, has made certain comments in

recent times about the guide representing no change really from the Fraser years. If you wouldprefer to take that question on notice, I would be happy to deal with it that way.

Senator Hill—That is a big job. Is there a particular part that you want to compare withguidelines of previous times?

Senator FAULKNER—Senator, it would be hard I think to divide the guide into some areasthat are less significant than others. If it does not draw on too many resources from thedepartment, it would be useful to have the information on what is new about the guide. Isuggest very little, given recent comments from the Prime Minister.

CHAIR —Is the guide a public document?Senator Hill—Yes.CHAIR —Perhaps Senator Faulkner could do the comparison himself between what applied

when he was a minister and what is in here.Senator ROBERT RAY—That question relates to when it was first tabled in parliament

with great fanfare. If it turns out to just merely be a consolidation of previous documents andthere are no changes, then we are at least able to say, ‘The fanfare was just political rhetoricaimed at cheap political opportunism.’ We are able to make that allegation if there is no



change from one set of guidelines to the next, especially when these ones have not beenenforced.

CHAIR —Would you not be the best person to work that out, Senator Ray? You were inthe previous government and the previous cabinet. You can read this as a public document.

Senator ROBERT RAY—You would think that there was a tinge of bias in my analysis.We are asking the Prime Minister’s department to do it, where there will be no bias.

CHAIR —I would never think that of you.Senator Hill—I do not accept that they are not enforced, too. There has been a dramatic

comparison of the level of enforcement over a very short period of time under this documentwith what occurred under the previous government.

Senator ROBERT RAY—You are batting at about 30 per cent.Senator Hill—You are arguing that we are enforcing it and you did not.Senator ROBERT RAY—I am arguing that you are not enforcing it.Senator Hill—You can ask the two ministers who have lost their jobs. Your lot just laughed

at the guidelines.Senator ROBERT RAY—Rubbish. You name the conflict of interest in the last 13 years?

You name one, Senator Hill? You cannot.Senator Hill—I would start at the top.Senator ROBERT RAY—You cannot name one direct conflict of interest.Senator Hill—We had several debates on conflict of interest when your then Prime Minister

was running his own businesses.Senator ROBERT RAY—But you just cannot recall.Senator FAULKNER—You can take my question on notice about differences between the

guidelines.Senator Hill—We will look at it.Senator FAULKNER—Minister, what instructions were ministers given about compliance

to the Prime Minister’s guide?Senator Hill—The document was forwarded to us. We obviously knew we had to comply

with it.Senator FAULKNER—Were ministers given briefings about the guidelines?Senator Hill—What do you mean?Senator FAULKNER—The document was forwarded to them. Was anything further done?

Were they given briefings?Senator Hill—I do not think that—CHAIR —Senator Faulkner, you are getting off the follow-up. I will come back to you, but

I just wanted to complete the process.Senator Hill—I do not recall briefings, but briefings should not be necessary. The document

stands.Senator FAULKNER—Can I ask who was responsible?CHAIR —No, you cannot. I will just complete the process, Senator Faulkner. I want to be

fair to everybody. Senator Ray, do you have any questions?



Senator ROBERT RAY—I have a couple and then I am leaving it to John to get back onit.

CHAIR —Okay.Senator ROBERT RAY—When the Prime Minister claimed that these guidelines had never

been published before, he really only meant that they had never been consolidated before,didn’t he? So he is wrong in that statement that the guidelines had never been published.

Senator Hill—This document has, obviously, never been published before. What you areasking for is an analysis of the content of this document compared with the various previousdocuments. We have accepted that we will do that job for Senator Faulkner.

Senator ROBERT RAY—At the moment you cannot suggest an area where thisconsolidated document differs markedly from the practice of previous governments?

CHAIR —I think Senator Hill said he will take that on notice.Senator ROBERT RAY—No, no—CHAIR —We do not want to keep asking the same questions. He said he will get it on

notice.Senator ROBERT RAY—Look, I do not need your guidance all the time, Mr Chairman,

much as I value it.CHAIR —It is my job to make sure that we do not ask repetitive questions.Senator ROBERT RAY—No, it is your job to protect the government at all times and I

respect that.CHAIR —No, it is not.Senator ROBERT RAY—But, nevertheless, I am going to ask my questions whether you

like it or not.CHAIR —I am the chairman of a Senate committee.Senator Hill—I would like to do comparisons of the previous guidelines.Senator ROBERT RAY—I understand that, Senator, because I was not trying to entrap

you into some minor difference. But can you see a major area of principle where it differsfrom the previous governments, going back to the Fraser government? There is nothingdramatically new about it.

Senator Hill—I cannot answer that, because—surprise, surprise!—I did not spend a lot oftime studying the previous government’s guidelines.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Did you spend much time looking at these ones until recently?Senator Hill—I read them.Senator ROBERT RAY—And you read them at a time when you were being briefed on

a million other subjects probably.Senator Hill—Yes, but I also knew that the Prime Minister had made the point, as you have

outlined, that he expected high standards and he was producing a document. I thought it wasin my best interests to read it.

Senator ROBERT RAY—This document was sent to all ministers and parliamentarysecretaries. They then responded, especially in the area of pecuniary interests, by sending backspecific declaration forms to the Prime Minister, as has been done over a couple of decadesnow. Was anyone in the Prime Minister’s office or department delegated to go through and



check those carefully to draw any possible conflict of interest or other factors to the attentionof the Prime Minister or the minister concerned?

Senator Hill—Again, that is a matter relating to the internal workings of the PrimeMinister’s office and/or his department. The way I have approached the matter, anyway, isthat it is a touch irrelevant. We have no right to expect that the Prime Minister will interpretthe forms for us or enter into a process of negotiation or whatever. It is our responsibilityunder the guidelines to interpret them and to comply with them.

Senator FAULKNER—Who held the forms? The Prime Minister or a member of his staff?Senator Hill—They are held under the authority of the Prime Minister.Senator ROBERT RAY—The weakness in that argument—even much weaker than your

other arguments about the internal workings of government—is that it begs the question whyministers, if it is entirely their own volition and responsibility, have to send a special formto the Prime Minister. If it is self-regulation, as you seem to be implying, there would be noneed to send the form to the Prime Minister or anyone else. When the forms are sent to thePrime Minister, it is logical to ask: is it the practice that the Prime Minister, himself or bydelegation, has those forms checked?

Senator Hill—It is not self-regulation. Self-regulation implies a voluntary compliance withno detrimental consequence. It is an obligation for us to comply with these guidelines andthese guidelines are capable of literal interpretation. Certainly, the Prime Minister is providedwith ammunition to respond in the circumstances of an apparent conflict, but the way hechoses to do that within the administration of his own office is a matter of internalconsequence.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Let me not ask whether the Prime Minister or a delegated staffmember looked at the forms, but ask a more general question. Were the forms examined whenthey came in? That is a different question.

Senator Hill—I understand they were, of course.Senator ROBERT RAY—We have established that they were, but we cannot say by who.

Is that right?Senator Hill—I will go back and ask. Again, that is a slippery slide, because the next

questions are: how long did they spend examining them, did they take independent advice onthem? And so you go on.

Senator ROBERT RAY—You can take those questions on notice.Senator Hill—I am giving you a hint.Senator ROBERT RAY—It is no longer an internal secret though that the secretary to the

Prime Minister’s department has been asked to go back and trawl through all those forms, hashe not? Or was that press conference around the corner that I watched part of the internalworkings of government?

Senator Hill—The events of the last few weeks have engendered a public debate on therules and their interpretation. A wider public debate as to whether the rules are fair in allcircumstances has obviously led to processes of analysis and evaluation.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Is the analysis an evaluation of the principles or is it also relatedto a thoroughgoing examination of pecuniary interest declarations made to the Prime Minister?Let us take Mr Max Moore-Wilton’s role. Is he delegated just to go back and check all theforms to make sure every issue has been thought through in relation to them? Or is he looking



at revising, clarifying or expanding the guidelines and reporting to the Prime Minister on thataspect?

Senator Hill—It is possible to argue that the application of the principal provision that hasbeen the subject of debate of recent times—that is, the obligation to divest shares in an areaof a minister’s portfolio responsibility—is open to differing interpretations. To that extent, thatneeds to be looked at. There has been a public debate. For example, does that mean if youhave a company as generic as BHP—

Senator ROBERT RAY—You are getting into detail that even I am not requiring.Senator Hill—I am trying to be helpful.Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, it was very helpful. But my question was whether Mr Max

Moore-Wilton was examining all the declaration forms made to the Prime Minister in a lotmore detail and with more analysis, given what has happened, or is he revising the guidelines?

Senator Hill—I need to have it confirmed but—as I understand it—he was asked to havea look at the returns, because of the sorts of problems I was seeking to enunciate a minuteago, and also to look at the issue of the guidelines in terms of their workability, if that is anappropriate word. This brings in this exploration of the issue of blind trusts. The PrimeMinister has said however, that this is not a code for a watering down.

Senator ROBERT RAY—No doubt he will contact the officer in Prime Minister andCabinet who wrote the guidelines and check the meaning of them with him.

Senator Hill—I do not know that is really all that relevant because, as the Prime Ministersaid, this is the document and the words stand as they are. There may be some explorationas to whether the words adequately reflect intent, but really it is a matter of moving on fromthis document rather than re-exploring it with the original draftsman—I do not know whetherthat would be all that helpful.

Senator ROBERT RAY—One final point: when you presented this document in the Senateyou read out the full text. The Prime Minister deleted the last sentence of that text.

Senator Hill—The covering statement?Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes. Why did the Prime Minister delete the last sentence in the

House of Representatives?Senator Hill—I have no idea.Senator ROBERT RAY—No idea?Senator Hill—No idea.Senator ROBERT RAY—Do you want to take that on notice.Senator Hill—I am not sure.Senator ROBERT RAY—I think you should, but I do not think you will.Senator Hill—Are you going to tell us what it was?Senator ROBERT RAY—I can go back and give you the text—yours was a little more

forceful.Senator Hill—Perhaps he got distracted towards the end.Senator ROBERT RAY—Back in May. I think he was so puffed up he may have.Senator Hill—I will explore that and see if there is anything I can provide.Senator ROBERT RAY—Thank you.



Senator WATSON—Going back a moment or two, would it be true to say that one of thedifficulties in the sorts of comparisons that some senators are seeking is that often there is areal lack of a full and true disclosure by some persons by the extensive use of trust instrumentswhich effectively hide assets under such arrangements?

Senator Hill—Thank you for the question, Senator Watson. I prefer the other end of thetable.

Senator WATSON—There are various levels of disclosure.Senator Hill—And some people say there are and always have been special rules for

farmers.Senator WATSON—That is right. I am sided against people from commerce.Senator Hill—I say it is clear; I am not suggesting that the trust is an intention to hide. The

discussions and public debate of recent weeks have raised a number of issues. Some arguethat you can never totally ensure proper behaviour through a written regulation. In the endit largely comes down to the standards of behaviour that individuals believe are appropriate.Nevertheless, this is an attempt to codify high standards and the Prime Minister is stilldemanding that high standards be achieved.

Senator FAULKNER—Who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the guide? ThePrime Minister’s office or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet?

Senator Hill—The obligation is on ministers to comply. The Prime Minister does not runsome sort of internal police force that goes around checking and double-checking the assetsof individuals. I think that would be totally inappropriate.

Senator FAULKNER—I am not suggesting he runs a police force. But he did say in theHouse of Representatives when Senator Herron was involved in surgery, as you would recall,that the guide had to be complied with by 27 May this year. I assume he did not say that andthen do nothing about ensuring that the guide was complied with?

Senator Hill—The record stands: two frontbenchers have lost jobs because of really verytechnical conflicts of interest. That is why I find your approach to this matter extraordinarybecause it is probably the highest level of enforcement that I can recall and yet you still seemto be totally dissatisfied. I am not sure what you are seeking.

Senator FAULKNER—Was any action taken after 27 May by the Prime Minister or hisoffice to ensure that the guide to key elements of ministerial responsibility was complied with?

Senator Hill—As I recall, he reinforced—I do not know that the date is quite so critical—his determination that—

Senator FAULKNER—How did he reinforce it?Senator Hill—You have just read out one way. It is that any minister who was interested

in his or her future would take note of what he said.Senator FAULKNER—Who in the Prime Minister’s office was the custodian of the

declaration forms?Senator Hill—They are held under the instruction of the Prime Minister. I do not think it

is appropriate—Senator FAULKNER—What did he do? Did he get it and stick it in a manila folder and

put it in a drawer? Or did he actually read them and do something about it?Senator Hill—That is a question for the internal operations of his office.



Senator FAULKNER—Was it the Prime Minister or a member of his staff who wasresponsible for, firstly, being the custodian of the forms and, secondly, looking at them tocheck that no minister was transgressing?

Senator Hill—No, I cannot tell you that because who within his staff is designated aparticular task is a matter of internal operation. The important thing is that they are held underhis authority.

Senator FAULKNER—So you are saying that he puffed himself up with all this self-importance about tabling the guide, ministerial standards, parliamentary accountability, requiredministers to comply by 27 May and then did absolutely nothing about enforcing thoseguidelines?

Senator Hill—Certainly not. As I remind you, one minister and one parliamentary secretaryhave lost their jobs over what most would regard as very technical breaches, which I wouldargue is evidence of the highest standards that we have seen for a long period of time.

Senator ROBERT RAY—So we presume someone read these returns but we cannot findout who. We therefore cannot find out who was so dopey as not to pick up these conflicts inMay—whether it was a staffer or the Prime Minister of this country. You know we want tobelieve that it was a staffer.

Senator Hill—We run on the basis that we take responsibility; we do not do the Garethexcuse—not too often anyway.

Senator FAULKNER—When did Senator Short and Senator Gibson infringe the guidelines?Senator ROBERT RAY—When they got caught?Senator FAULKNER—And how did you find out about it?Senator Hill—No, not then. There are two different levels. There is the issue of the shares

that were held and, as I have tried to suggest, that is a difficult issue in applying the rules tothe circumstances.

Senator FAULKNER—That is where they might have infringed the guidelines. But whendid they infringe the guidelines?

CHAIR —Order! Let Senator Hill finish the answer.Senator Hill—But they clearly infringed the guidelines when they took decisions as the

holders whilst being the holders of certain shares that established that technical conflict ofinterest. So, technically, it would have been when Senator Short gave that approval toGrindlays to obtain a local licence even though it was a subsidiary and it was simply a matterof internal reorganisation of the ANZ bank’s affairs. But, technically, he was then in breachand he suffered a very great penalty for it.

Senator FAULKNER—How did Mr Howard establish that Mr Moore did not breach theguidelines?

Senator Hill—Via the fax—Senator FAULKNER—I asked you when and you were answering how Senator Short and

Senator Gibson did not breach the guidelines.Senator Hill—I did so explicitly. It is a question of applying the facts to the ‘law’—

applying the facts to the rules. And when you apply the facts to the rules, in the case of MrMoore there has been no breach of the guidelines.



Senator FAULKNER—When is Mr Moore-Wilton’s task to rifle through all these returnsgoing to be completed?

Senator Hill—I presume it was to be some time ago. There is the second project.Senator FAULKNER—Is that because the Prime Minister has expressed some concerns

about the practicality of the guidelines—the second project, as you call it?Senator Hill—Your colleagues have referred to various interviews where the Prime Minister

has explained this. I think most reasonable people think after the events of the last week ortwo that there is reason to revisit these guidelines, whilst at the same time being determinedto maintain the highest standards.

Senator FAULKNER—Is Mr Moore-Wilton’s review independent of any instructions fromthe Prime Minister? I understand that he has been directly tasked by the Prime Minister to,firstly, go through all the forms and try to desperately save any minister who might have aconflict of interest and, secondly, to look at the practicality of the guidelines.

Senator Hill—There has been no instruction to that effect.Senator ROBERT RAY—Is he using any public servants to assist him?Senator Hill—Are we looking at the issues of blind trust, for example?Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, even though he thinks, to quote him the other day, that they

are all constipated.Senator Hill—That is not his view.Senator FAULKNER—I understand that he has been tasked by the Prime Minister. I

appreciate the point you make that he has been tasked by the Prime Minister to look at thepracticality of the guidelines. Does this particular review have any guidance from the PrimeMinister? Are there any terms of reference?

Senator Hill—It is on the public record that he is looking at the issue of blind trusts. Heis looking at how similar democracies have sought to deal with this particular issue.

Senator FAULKNER—But has he been directed to particular areas in the guidelines thatthe Prime Minister sees as problematical?

Senator Hill—If he is looking at the issue of blind trusts, he is obviously certainly lookingat the paragraph at the top of page 11.

Senator FAULKNER—But he has been specifically asked to look at the issue of blindtrusts.

Senator Hill—As I understand it.Senator FAULKNER—Could you provide the committee with Mr Moore-Wilton’s terms

of reference for this review?Senator Hill—Again, I do not know whether he has received a detailed set of terms of

reference. The Prime Minister has outlined to the parliament what he is seeking. I do not knowwhether it extends beyond that, but I will ask.

Senator HEFFERNAN—Minister, there has been some suggestion this morning that thepresent guidelines are similar to those of the previous government’s guidelines. Under thepresent guidelines would the decision to grant $15 million in one year and $90 million over10 years to the unions have involved a declaration of interests for those members of thegovernment who had union affiliations and then their withdrawal from the various decisions



that related to the granting of those grants? Were there any such declarations? If so, is itpossible that there would have been no one left to make the decision?

Senator Hill—I do not know the answer. Some people have put it in terms that there werestandard rises as the number of parties within a group are reduced, so that all ministers makedecisions that, say, on taxation law, could potentially benefit them or hurt them. If you makea decision to reduce income tax, every minister benefits from it. If you make a decision thatexpands areas of practice, hypothetically, for the legal profession, you could say that lawyersper se within cabinet benefit. But you may say that it is a group of such a size that it is notnecessary for them to either disclose that specifically or to regard themselves in terms of theobligations in a conflict of interest.

You may argue similarly with the ALP in relation to their union membership. This is whereit becomes very difficult and why in some ways it is a touch unfair on a minister in, say,Senator Short’s former position, where there is no suggestion that there was any benefit tohim from the action he took. Nobody has even hinted at that. Furthermore, there is not evenany suggestion that any material benefit would flow to the ANZ bank from the decision thathe was asked to take, which had been recommended to him by both the Reserve Bank andTreasury. Yet it cost him his job. Yet somebody who is in a union movement and in cabinetmay benefit from a decision, or somebody who is a lawyer, to use my example, may benefitand not lose their job. It is just part and parcel of what is a very difficult area. It has becomeclear in the last few weeks that it is perhaps even more difficult than people previouslyappreciated.

Senator HEFFERNAN—Under the present guidelines—once again, drawing somesimilarities with the previous guidelines—would the decision to import or not import porkwhen you are a piggery owner have involved the declaration of interest?

Senator Hill—Again, you could say that there is a potential conflict of interest. If thedecision to import pork provides greater competition with your own business, the decision,say, to refuse an application could be argued to benefit you.

Senator HEFFERNAN—But surely even to participate in the decision, regardless of howthe decision was made, would have been declared pecuniary interest.

Senator Hill—You could argue that it should be. I would not push it too far though, becausethe next step in the logical argument is that a farmer can never be a minister for primaryindustry. It is ridiculous. That is why the Prime Minister is uncomfortable. You are not allowedto operate a business. That is why Senator Ray scoffs at it, although Mr Keating would arguethat he did not operate that business. But it was nevertheless a very large piggery business.There are lots of areas of potential conflict of interest. I think Mr Howard’s view would bethat it is inappropriate for prime ministers to be in business in that way.

Senator FAULKNER—Does Mr Howard regret signing off these guidelines that somebodystuck under his nose without reading them?

Senator ROBERT RAY—Senator Short does.CHAIR —I have been advised that the officers here for subprogram 3.1, ‘Status of women’,

are not required by the committee. We have invited them to go back and do something moreproductive.

Senator WATSON—Senator Hill, are you satisfied that the trigger for the disclosure of thebreach in respect of one minister and one parliamentary secretary did not arise as a result ofdepartmental leaks?



Senator Hill—Yes, I think Senator Short basically researched the hundreds, if not thousands,of what I might describe as formal approvals that he had given during his period in theministry and discovered this one himself.

Senator WATSON—It does seem somewhat suspect to the layman that one of those many,many approvals that Senator Short gave suddenly came to the public attention, as does themanner in which it came to public attention.

Senator Hill—Yes. I do not know, but I think that Senator Short, to his credit, and in theusual thorough way in which he operated, discovered this technical slip.

Senator WATSON—In no way did I intend to suggest any impropriety in the manner inwhich he acted; I was just raising a question about the trigger which gave rise to the publicdisclosure of the breach. That concerned me.

CHAIR —Thank you, Senator Watson. As there are no other questions on program 1, wewill move on to the next one listed—2.2.1.[10.32 a.m.]

Program 2—Government support servicesSubprogram 2.2.1—Machinery of government

Senator ROBERT RAY—I was asking questions about staffing inside minister’s officesand offices of others in opposition. Evidence was given at the last estimates committee thatthere were percentage reductions. Would you like to correct now the record just for the sakeof the record—I am in no way critical of the answers you gave last time—and to actually givethe formula which was pretty much evinced in the DAS estimates?

Mr Bonsey—I would appreciate the opportunity to do that, Senator. It is very much the casethat the correct methodology, which we should have described, is that the government arrivesat its allocation and a factor of 21 per cent is applied to that, and that leads to the allocationfor the opposition. That has been confirmed in correspondence between the Prime Ministerand the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator ROBERT RAY—I think I got from DAS that the total establishment for thegovernment is 295. Is that right?

Mr Bonsey—That is correct, Senator.Senator ROBERT RAY—The establishment for the opposition is 61. Is that right?Mr Bonsey—That is correct, Senator.Senator ROBERT RAY—And 21 per cent of 295 is 61.95?Mr Bonsey—An explanation for that—I understand your concern about the rounding—is

that 295 is the current government allocation, and, at the time the calculation was made,towards the end of March, the expectation was that the government allocation would have been292, 293; it ran just below the 61.5.

Senator ROBERT RAY—I was wondering, Minister, why it was rounded down from 0.95to nought, that is all.

Mr Bonsey—It is a discrepancy between that 292, 293 and 295.Senator ROBERT RAY—Can you recall what the extra positions were that were added

in?



Mr Bonsey—From memory, the position for Senator Boswell came in a bit later, and therewas a variation made in the Treasurer’s establishment to trade off a senior position for twoless senior positions.

Senator ROBERT RAY—I see, yes, that is not unusual. So we now have 295. When isthe next review? Let me put it straight out: when are we going to get our 0.95?

Mr Bonsey—The Prime Minister has indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that thereview will take place on an annual basis—therefore, next March.

Senator ROBERT RAY—So there is a substantial lag time in opposition rights comparedwith—

Mr Bonsey—It is an annual review. I am not quite sure what the practice has beenpreviously.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Fair enough. We were discussing at the last estimates committeethe staffing of the Prime Minister’s office. I took it from what you said that the cabinet policyunit is part of the Prime Minister’s staff; is that right?

Mr Bonsey—The cabinet policy unit’s staff are engaged under the MOPS Act by the PrimeMinister. Their contracts were, in fact, signed by the Prime Minister’s chief of staff as thePrime Minister’s delegate. For our categorisation purposes and for DAS’s categorisationpurposes, whilst they are regarded as staff of the Prime Minister, they are listed separately.It is a different exercise.

Senator ROBERT RAY—I am not critical of that; I was just trying to clarify it, becauseit seemed to me you were hinting that they were on the Prime Minister’s staff last time,whereas DAS are pretty clear they come in that group of 14 of others—whips’, Boswell’s,all the rest.

Mr Bonsey—That is correct.Senator ROBERT RAY—So the Prime Minister’s staff establishment in fact is 32.Mr Bonsey—The establishment is 30 ministerial staff positions, of which one position is

shared by two people, plus a vacant consultancy position which has never been filled.Senator ROBERT RAY—Sorry, I am talking about establishment, not actuality.Mr Bonsey—That is what I am outlining. Thirty positions, one of which is shared, plus a

consultancy position.Senator ROBERT RAY—So it is 32. DAS allocate you 32 and you have a couple of

DLOs.Mr Bonsey—There are at present two DLOs.Senator ROBERT RAY—So 34. Minister, no-one in government will take responsibility

for DLOs—as to any policy on DLOs. Would I be right in saying there are now 62 DLOsworking for the government, compared with 64 for the previous government?

Senator Hill—I understood it was about the same. Because no-one will take totalresponsibility, they have trouble calculating the numbers.

Senator ROBERT RAY—On your trouble calculating the numbers I have full sympathywith you, because Senator Short and Mr Costello do not list them. They do not do that throughany malevolence; they just characterise them in different ways. But the last time I added itup I got it to 62.



Senator Hill—We went back, I gather, through the previous directories, but not everyoneowns up in a directory.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, that is the problem.Senator Hill—But we believe it is about the same.Senator ROBERT RAY—The point I am making is that there is no 20 per cent cut in

DLOs, is there? The only difference is that you have got 28 ministers compared with 30previously.

Mr Bonsey—That is the case, Senator. It is also the case that DLOs have never beenincluded in the ratio.

Senator ROBERT RAY—I understand that, but they are still bodies working in offices,et cetera. Okay, I think we have asked DAS to actually properly identify DLOs in theirhandbook, so maybe in future none of us will have that difficulty.

The government backbench support group we mentioned last time—who do they report to?Senator Hill—They report to Mr Jull. They are under the authority of Mr Jull.Senator ROBERT RAY—That is Mr Jull, not Mr Robb.Senator Hill—No, Minister Jull.Senator ROBERT RAY—We discussed last time the allocation of staff to ministers. Was

there any reason why the Prime Minister did not allocate the minister for health a mediaofficer? You could take that on notice.

Senator Hill—I do not understand why that should be so. I will take some advice on that.Senator ROBERT RAY—Could you tell me why the Prime Minister allocated Mr Jull two

media officers?Senator Hill—I am told that in the case of Dr Wooldridge—I do not know why—Dr

Wooldridge sought a second senior adviser in lieu of a media adviser, and that was approvedby the Prime Minister.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Maybe he is using Mr Nelson. That is the logical explanation—that you swap one for a second senior adviser. There are now—am I right—40 senior advisersworking for the government?

Senator Hill—But some of the package of that senior adviser has been downgraded, I think,to better reflect the same level of benefits.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Why did the Prime Minister allocate Mr Jull two media officers?Senator Hill—I think on the basis that that would enable Mr Jull to meet a broader

requirement of communication within Queensland.Senator ROBERT RAY—In the Prime Minister’s letter to Mr Jull informing him of his

staff entitlements, was there some special description appended saying why he had two mediaadvisers rather than one?

Senator Hill—I do not know the answer to that and I am not even sure whether it wouldhave been in the original letter or whether it evolved as the total government staff groupingwas being put together.

Senator ROBERT RAY—I see. Could we at least find out whether the second mediaadviser was in Mr Jull’s original allocation of staff or whether it was added later, and if so,when?



Senator Hill—Yes.Senator ROBERT RAY—With the second media officer, Mr Ryan, there must be a real

shortage of office space in Queensland because he cannot fit into Mr Jull’s ministerial office,can he?

Senator Hill—Is that right? Well, if it is the building I think it is in I would have thought—it is a very old building, isn’t it?

Senator ROBERT RAY—So he is set up in a separate visiting minister’s office.Senator Hill—I do not know. I will find out.Senator ROBERT RAY—Is that where the dedicated data transmission line is?Senator Hill—Is Mr Jull in that luxury accommodation that the previous government

decided we should share in Brisbane? I can only assume that there was an issue of space, butI will check on that and confirm as well.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Can you give us any reason why Mr Ruddock was allocated twomedia advisers?

Senator Hill—I think it is a similar explanation in relation to government demands for NewSouth Wales. That is as I understand it.

Senator ROBERT RAY—I know you think you understand it, but it is not clear to me whatyour understanding is. Could you just repeat it once more—I am not going to ask it in everyother case. What is your understanding for the second media officer?

Senator Hill—To work to, in that instance, Mr Ruddock, to carry on the usual functionsof a media officer but to better reflect the government’s goals and the whole of governmentposition.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Could I ask on notice whether, when Mr Ruddock was givenhis second media adviser, it was from the original allocation or whether it came from theprocess of expansion or whatever else?

Senator Hill—Yes.Senator ROBERT RAY—I need not ask you where the second media officer works,

because that question is on notice already.Senator Hill—I think it was the view of the government that there should be a small number

of extra media support and, as a result, apart from the anomaly of Dr Wooldridge, as each ofthe other ministers had one, that would necessarily mean that a number would have two.

Senator ROBERT RAY—When was the public announcement of this? When did the pressrelease go out that actually announced that Mr Jull and Mr Ruddock would have an extra presssecretary or media assistant for this purpose?

Senator Hill—I do not know that there was a public announcement setting out the staff forany particular minister, even in the first instance.

Senator ROBERT RAY—So there has been no public announcement about this at all?Senator Hill—Well, all the information is public information, as you were even able to tell

me which office they occupy, let alone to whom they are attached. I do not know of a publicpress release that set it out.

Senator ROBERT RAY—I am not going to be boorish and repetitious, but I am right insaying that Mr Reith has two, Mr Smith has two, Senator Vanstone has two, and Mr Williams



has two. That is, one minister in each of the six states has been allocated an extra mediaofficer.

Senator Hill—Yes.Senator ROBERT RAY—And the reason for this—Senator Hill—Is that we believe the media demands of the government exceed the

capacity—to some extent, not to a great extent—of the one media officer provided to eachof the ministers.

Senator ROBERT RAY—So in effect they have been parked with a minister becausesomeone has to be in charge of them; is that right?

Senator Hill—I would not put it quite like that.Senator ROBERT RAY—Okay, how would you put it?Senator Hill—I would put it in the way that I have just put it.Senator ROBERT RAY—The way you are putting it, it seems to me that the duties of

those media advisers relate to the whole of government rather than necessarily to the ministerthey have been allocated to. Is that right?

Senator Hill—I would categorise it like that. I suppose all media officers should have, inmy view, a responsibility that goes beyond simply the communication of their particularportfolio responsibility. They can certainly get very much tied down with their individualportfolios. By providing a small group of extra media staff, we believe we can bettercommunicate the government’s program.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Then why not put them in a pool? Why allocate them toindividual ministers?

Senator Hill—That may be an issue of accountability.Senator ROBERT RAY—I was not trying to entrap you before when I asked about a press

release, because I had forgotten this, but I just remembered that Senator Vanstone put out apress release appointing the second media officer and she made no mention of whole ofgovernment approach or extra responsibilities or anything. Why was that?

Senator Hill—I have got no idea.Senator ROBERT RAY—I am sure I have got a copy of that press release still in my

office, so I can pursue this matter another time. So we have got six extra media officers spreadacross six states, parked with six ministers—obviously not in order of importance because theTreasurer, the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister only get one—and they aredoing whole of government work. There was no media announcement and the one press releasethat went out appointing one of these people made no reference to the tasks that this personis performing.

Senator Hill—I have to accept what you say; I do not know of that press release.Senator ROBERT RAY—All six of the second media officers are resident in their home

state and have designated that as their home base. If you do not know that I can refer you toit.

Senator Hill—That would seem to mesh with what I am saying. In relation to questionson notice for DAS, there is one question that needs to be set out. Senator Kemp is going todo that. I suggest that when he does that this afternoon that is not as a result of any questionsyou have asked me this morning.



Senator ROBERT RAY—You understand the overlap. In one instance we are dealing withthe intent of the government and the other the execution of the intent. The execution of theintent comes within DAS. To get to the reasons for the allocation of opposition staff levelswe have to come to Prime Minister and Cabinet because the Prime Minister does that.

Senator Hill—I accept that.Senator ROBERT RAY—There have been a variety of questions put on notice as to the

equipment granted to the second media officer, but maybe you can shorten some of thesequestions. Will you give me a guarantee that these six people were not secretly appointedsimply to replace aNiMaLS and do media monitoring?

Senator Hill—I can give you a guarantee that these six people do not perform the role thataNiMaLS performed. They do not track parliamentarians around the country, do not seek outinformation that may be used to an individual’s disadvantage, do not prowl the gallery andare not based in Canberra. I can tell you that their role is fundamentally different from theway in which you sought to use aNiMaLS to advance your political interests.

Senator ROBERT RAY—You have told me what they do not do. Do any of these sixpeople or do all of these six people electronically record programs and provide transcripts forthe government?

Senator Hill—I would have to get information. I actually do not know how each of themoperates but I can ask.

Senator ROBERT RAY—I think you can see that it is of fundamental importance givenyour criticism of aNiMaLS. If for some reason there is a suggestion you have replicated it,maybe not in all its forms, we would be entitled to know that, given the fuss made at previousestimates committees.

CHAIR —The mention of aNiMaLS took me back to my home town and some parochialism.I think there were three people working for aNiMaLS in Townsville. What happened to thosepeople. Were they given redundancies? What happened when aNiMaLS was closed down.

Mr Bonsey—My assumption is that they would have been subject to the same provisionsas other ministerial staff of the former government. There would have been entitlements andconditions under which they were employed.

CHAIR —So they were actually on ministerial staff?Mr Bonsey—Yes.CHAIR —That is right. That was Senator Kemp’s issue over the last four years. How many

were in Darwin?Mr Bonsey—There were two in Darwin.Senator ROBERT RAY—Senator Faulkner asked DAS on 10 September one of those

innumerable questions on how many staff are around the joint—and I promise you they willdrop off as both you and I get the methodology right in DAS. It pointed to the fact that thegovernment has very commendably cut its ministerial staff numbers.

DAS makes that point far more politically than your department at every opportunity it getsbut actually at the top there have not been very many cuts, have there? The principal adviser,the senior adviser and adviser level are very similar. Most of the cuts, apart from consultants,have come from the bottom end of the scale.

Senator Hill—To be fair, the consultants were at the top of the scale.Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes.



Senator Hill—There have been major cuts therefore at the top of the scale.Senator ROBERT RAY—The consultants cut are at the top but the rest are not particularly.

Then the next major cuts come at the receptionist, personal secretary and assistant adviserlevel, by my reading of this answer. That is where the major cuts have come. What I amsuggesting is that the bottom cuts have been a bit heavy.

Senator Hill—I would suggest to you that that is somewhat unfair because of the cuttingout of the consultants that I think every Labor minister had.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Let us assume that consultants are at the top and you have senioradvisers and advisers. Then you have assistant advisers and personal secretaries. The very tophas been hit. Yes, we can see that, apart from principal advisers. Then the adviser and senioradviser level are basically the same. The next tranche of cuts comes at a lower level, and thenofficers.

Senator Hill—That might be so. You are basically right because the tops and the bottomshave been cut. Would you like me to do a comparison across the ranges?

Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, but it really leads to another question that I would like yourresponse on in an in-principle way rather than a detailed answer. If, in fact, the advisers andsenior adviser are about the same but you have covered the other end, that is fine. People mayargue that is a bit top heavy so your savings are not as big as ever but we will let thatargument go. Do you know of any instances—I know at least one but I think it is morecommon—where those gaps at the lesser level are being filled by departmental people beingsent over to fill them? These are not departmental liaison officers; these are clerks—ASO atwhatever level—coming in to fill these gaps created by these cuts.

Senator Hill—I gather you have a question on notice on it but I will explore it. As Iunderstand it—

Senator ROBERT RAY—I am sorry, I am not asking for that question to be answeredbecause of the 30-day rule; with all the departments I have asked about it is going to be a longwhile before it comes in. I am asking you, as a matter of principle, in terms of allocation of295 ministerial staff and 62 DLOs, whether there is additional staff coming in at the bottomend which would make your cuts just a little dubious and therefore the justification to cut theopposition staffing even more dubious?

Senator Hill—If that was occurring I can see the argument but I certainly do not think itis occurring across the board. You are not quarrelling about short-term assistance.

Senator ROBERT RAY—I am not talking about a month but if there is a regular pattern—Senator Hill—The usual practice, as I understand, is that if somebody from the department

other than a DLO comes in, they are taking one of these government allocated positions andit certainly should not be used to distort the figures.

Senator ROBERT RAY—We will revisit it at additional estimates when all the questionshave been answered—and, indeed, if there is nothing of interest I will not pursue it there. Iam letting you know that I want to recheck it at that stage if those answers throw up anyanomalies.

Senator Hill—There might be a number on our side interested in it as well.Senator ROBERT RAY—One of the DAS answers may be relevant here. Can we return

to the media adviser just for a moment? I did ask you whether we thought the media adviser



was doing any media monitoring. Mr Ryan in Mr Jull’s office has been provided with a TVand video recorder and three radio cassette recorders. Do we know why?

Senator Hill—If you ask me specifically about him, I do not know. Certainly, the distinctionthat I would draw is this: let us say the Prime Minister is in Adelaide today and there is apublic interest issue running on Adelaide radio this morning; I think it would be totallylegitimate for resources of government to have informed him of that so that he can respondand improve public information. But that is not, in my experience, the way that your aNiMaLSworked. Labor’s aNiMaLS had this function of monitoring opposition spokesmen in the hopeof finding some error or inconsistency which was not only monitored but recorded and thensent through to the central headquarters in this business to be taken up to the gallery and soldto the gallery as a blunder on the opposition’s part. That is what we criticised and I still thinkit was a wrong use of public money.

Senator ROBERT RAY—You have made that point. I have neither accepted nor challengedit. But that is something that you would say is on the asset side of your ledger. What we aretrying to measure off here is whether, in a double-standard, hypocritical way, the PrimeMinister has lobbed another six staff in here to maybe do half the task of the old aNiMaLS—not the full tote odds that you criticise—and done it in great secrecy and hidden it behind sixother ministers. The sort of information we want to know is whether they do media monitoringand they do pass it back through the system, et cetera. There is probably nothing wrong inthat. The wrongness is in hiding it and not having the guts to come out and say you are doingit.

Senator Hill—You have just told me that Senator Vanstone put out a press release, whichsurprised me. The

Documents

SENATE Official Committee Hansard...Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Mr Philip Moss, Assistant Inspector General Department of Finance— Mr Peter Hamburger,