Senator PARER --I refer to your response to the question placed on notice by Senator Baume which appears under additional information on page 47. He asked a series of questions about expenditure grants appropriated to your department and what were available to the minister to allocate. You gave a fairly lengthy answer. I have four or five questions which you may or may not have at your fingertips. If not, I am happy for you to put them on notice. What grants were made in 1992-93 and 1993-94 under the five grant programs mentioned in your response? I think you will probably have to take these on notice; I doubt if you will have the answers.

Senator Schacht --We will take that on notice. Do we have that stuff available?

Mr Hollway --We may have the data but it is going to take a bit of time to add it up.

Senator Schacht --Okay, we will take it on notice, Senator Parer.

Senator PARER --The questions are all related. What is the cost of administering each program for the same periods I have requested as a percentage of the total cost of each program? What proportion, if any, of the grants were delivered through local members of parliament? How many of the grants distributed through local members, if any, went to government electorates and how many to non-government electorates? How were the cheques to the organisations in non-government electorates delivered?

Senator Schacht --You use the phrase, `delivered by government members'. What do you mean `delivered by'?

Senator PARER --There has been an increasing tendency--and I am not suggesting it happens in this department, I am asking the question--where there is a sitting ALP member for the department, under instructions from the minister, to send the cheque to the member of parliament who then hands it over to the happy recipient with the flashing of light bulbs.

Senator Schacht --So the word should be `presenting' rather than implying that they are actually determining it.

Senator PARER --Yes.

Senator CHAPMAN --At the original hearings I sought to ask some questions regarding the employment of Mr Brian Courtice as a consultant to the former minister and was told that that was not the responsibility of the department, it was the responsibility of the Department of Administrative Services. I asked those questions of that department at the estimates hearings and was told that because Mr Courtice was employed as a consultant to the minister it came under DITARD responsibility.

I am not very happy with this run-around, I would like some answers to the questions that I asked. Could I please have them?

Mr Edwards --Mr Courtice was a consultant to the minister, not to the department, which means that he was answerable to the minister. In general, all payments made for him were administered through the Department of Administrative Services, not through this department.

There were some payments made by this department and we gave you a figure on our first read through. I should amend that figure now. It is not an enormous difference. There was no change to the taxi fares but additional payments in relation to mobile phone charges and airfreight have been picked up. The total is now $2,880.96 instead of $2,685 which was the figure that we gave you before.

The first part of your question asked who was responsible for that. We essentially paid those bills. I should say that we have concluded that the payments in relation to taxi fares were in error. Essentially the Department of Industry, Technology and Regional Development should not have been paying those. We are in discussions now with DAS as to the proper accounting for those and we will negotiate with them so that they pick up the tab. The only question is which part of the government appropriations they came out of. It came out of the wrong one, it was a mistake, and we are sorting it out with DAS.

Senator CHAPMAN --I have questions in relation to the way in which Mr Courtice spent his time in return for the $73,000 that he was paid as a consultant. To whom should they be directed since DAS indicated to me that that was not their responsibility.

Senator Schacht --He was employed as a consultant in accordance with government decisions and government rules. He was employed as a consultant by the minister, and the minister gave him directions over his duties, not the department.

Senator CHAPMAN --Therefore the minister is responsible for his duties?

Senator Schacht --Yes, of course.

Senator CHAPMAN --That minister has been changed so does this mean that the government is allowed to get away with no accountability?

Senator Schacht --Of course not.

Senator CHAPMAN --Who do I ask the question to?

Senator Schacht --He was not employed by me so I cannot answer the question. But to say that we are trying to escape accountability is not correct. I will take that on notice and give you an answer but I will add that it will be a general description of the duties as a consultant. He was responsible to the minister and the minister who employs him is responsible in the public sense for the work that he does.

Senator CHAPMAN --I will ask you the questions which you may then take on notice and see if you can provide the answers please. How is it that Mr Courtice apparently travelled to Canberra on most sitting weeks with members of parliament from Queensland and frequently returned to Queensland with them on a Friday morning? How come his responsibilities were so relaxed that he was not required to complete a full week's work in Canberra, nor work with the minister, the minister not being a minister from Queensland?

Senator Schacht --As I understand it, Mr Courtice still lived in Queensland, as I think he was entitled to under the rules.

Senator CHAPMAN --For $73,000 I would also have thought he was required to do a full week's work, not three or four days a week.

Senator Schacht --Just because he was--

CHAIRMAN --Order! I think you have indicated you will take the question on notice. Can we just deal with the questions.

Senator Schacht --What is going on here is a bit of a smear campaign against Mr Courtice and the former minister. I think it is totally unwarranted. We will get the information for you, but just because he lived in Queensland he should not have prejudicial remarks made against him, just because he is a Queenslander.

Senator CHAPMAN --Can I ask whether calling on Queensland media and entertaining them was part of his brief as a consultant?

Senator Schacht --That is a question, I presume, rather than the way you are throwing it like a smear. How many more of those have you got? As I say, I am going to take them on notice.

Senator CHAPMAN --Again, in relation to his consultancy, I would like to ask why he was often in Brisbane on Fridays of parliamentary sitting weeks, rather than working with the minister either in Canberra or wherever the minister may have been travelling to--

Senator Schacht --I will take it on notice, but I have never been given any information that it was always expected that a consultant would travel like a baggage handler with the minister all round Australia. I do not think consultants were ever employed by any government, including your government when it was last in office, which is so long ago you probably cannot remember--

Senator CHAPMAN --I am not suggesting that, Minister, at all.

Senator Schacht --I think you are implying that the consultant must be always in attendance like some second-hand butler, wherever the minister is. That is not what a consultant's performance is.

Senator CHAPMAN --Not necessarily. I would expect that if he was not with the minister he would be working out of the ministerial office in Canberra.

Senator Schacht --I will take that on notice. I think you are trying to set up smear questions by implication and we will get the answers--

Senator CHAPMAN --I am just trying to bring some accountability into the--

Senator Schacht --There is full accountability, because you have asked questions and we are answering them, and if we cannot answer them we will get the--

Senator CHAPMAN --Well, do not suggest they are smear questions, Minister. I am simply trying to bring some accountability into the employment of staff.

Senator Schacht --You are just making accusations.

CHAIRMAN --Can I just bring this committee meeting to order.

Senator Schacht --Mr Chairman, accusations have been made, off the cuff, implying that Mr Courtice was drinking with journalists on a Friday in Brisbane. If you want to be fair dinkum about this, give us the date, the people he was doing it with, rather than making a loose handed, off the cuff smear. Give us the date and who he was drinking with. You have to be fair dinkum about this. That is what you would normally do in an estimates committee.

CHAIRMAN --Yes, I think that is correct, Minister, and I would ask, Senator Chapman, that you put specific questions. I think the department have in part indicated that they are not able to answer some of the questions, the minister has indicated that he will take those other questions that you propose on notice, and you do have the right if you are not satisfied with that approach to ask further questions within the chamber.

Senator CHAPMAN --Thank you, Mr Chairman. Can I ask from whose office Mr Courtice operated in Brisbane.

Senator Schacht --We will take that on notice.

Senator CHAPMAN --According to the terms of Mr Courtice's consultancy, it was to provide advice on regional and other issues. With the completion of the Kelty report, and the Industry Commission inquiry almost completed, what was the nature of the regional advice offered by Mr Courtice, and what were the other issues on which Mr Courtice advised the minister?

Senator Schacht --You have partly answered the first question I took on notice about what were his duties. You have obviously got some idea what they were because you have just quoted them, about advising on regional issues. I would also point out, Senator Chapman, that the department is called the Department of Industry, Technology and Regional Development, and that Minister Griffiths was the Minister for Industry, Technology and Regional Development, so it would not be unusual, irrespective of the life of the Kelty task force, that he have a consultant on issues of regional development, because that is the department's title, it is the department's function.

Senator CHAPMAN --Can I ask whether Mr Courtice officially accompanied the Kelty task force around Australia.

Senator Schacht --I do not know. We will get that on notice.

Senator CHAPMAN --Or was he only present on some of its visits to some areas?

Senator Schacht --I will find out.

Senator CHAPMAN --Did Mr Courtice compile any of the data used in the Kelty report?

Senator Schacht --I will take that on notice.

Senator CHAPMAN --Was he the author or co-author of any of the regional profiles?

Senator Schacht --I do not know. I will take it on notice.

Senator CHAPMAN --Did he attend hearings of the Industry Commission's inquiry into impediments to regional industry adjustment? If so, on what basis did he attend those hearings?

Senator Schacht --I will take it on notice, but I must say that, if they were Industry Commission hearings, they were probably public hearings which any member of the public is entitled to attend, including opposition senators of the federal parliament. They are not secret societies.

Senator CHAPMAN --When the minister, Mr Griffiths, launched his magnesium policy in Gladstone, did Mr Courtice organise the invitation list for that function?

Senator Schacht --I will make an inquiry about that, but I am not going to guarantee that I will get an answer back. That was a public function and it was a major policy initiative of the government in a regional area of Australia, so it would not be unusual to expect the consultant on regional matters to be involved in the function in Gladstone for a major initiative which I think everybody in Australia with an ounce of intelligence would say is an excellent one for Australia to be involved in.

Senator CHAPMAN --Minister, given that you have acknowledged that that particular event was a major function and as industry, business and local government leaders were invited, why was the current member for Hinkler not invited to this major event, which was located in his own electorate?

Senator Schacht --I do not know whether he was invited or not.

Senator CHAPMAN --He was not. I am asking why he was not.

Senator Schacht --I will take that on notice. I will try to find out the basis for the invitations. I suppose judgments are made from time to time about who is to be on a list, but I do not know whether he was invited or not. You are asserting that he was not, and I will have to check that out. You must be worried that Mr Courtice is going to win the seat back.

Senator CHAPMAN --No, I am not worried that he is going to win the seat back; I am just worried that taxpayers' resources are being used to fund his campaign to win the seat back. Is it a fact that the activities in which Mr Courtice is involved have been planned so assiduously that his brief is to be terminated just six months prior to the scheduled date of the next federal election?

Senator Schacht --I have no idea, but I will take it on notice.

Senator CHAPMAN --Thank you, Minister.

Senator PARER --I would like to know whether Mr Courtice was ever employed as a consultant by any minister or the department prior to his election as the member for Hinkler.

Senator Schacht --I do not know. We will take that on notice.

Senator PARER --I think I would know the answer to that.

Senator Schacht --If you know the answer, do not ask.

CHAIRMAN --I draw senators' attention to the need to maintain some relevance to the program.

Senator PARER --I think it is about the employment of Mr Brian Courtice, Mr Chairman. What special qualifications would Mr Courtice have had, other than being the one-term member for Hinkler, to be employed as a consultant?

Senator Schacht --As I said before, in answer to the very first question, I will get the details. I will take on notice the question about the terms and conditions of Mr Courtice's employment as a consultant. As you would know, Senator Parer, it has been a long-established practice, not just of this government but of previous governments of your party, that ministers employ consultants to carry out particular functions, under certain terms and conditions that are all public and transparent, and from time to time those consultants may have a particular political experience.

Senator PARER --Really what you are saying is that he got the consultancy because he was the previous member for Hinkler.

Senator Schacht --No, not at all. I did not say that. What you are saying is that having political experience and being a former member of parliament should automatically rule you out.

Senator PARER --No. I am saying it is jobs for the boys.

CHAIRMAN --It might be a nice debate to have, but we must move on.