Senator FAULKNER —I ask a question about the NPPs. I am assuming that the actual Department of the Senate did not lodge any new policy proposals this year. Would that be correct?

The PRESIDENT —That is correct.

Senator FAULKNER —What are the section 31 receipts for the Senate referred to in the PBS? That might be a useful starting point.

Mr Evans —The receipts are mainly from charging fees for seminars, which the department runs largely for public servants; from the sale of publications, largely from the PEO; and there is also an amount for sale of computers.

Senator FAULKNER —Sale of?

Mr Evans —Computers.

The PRESIDENT —Disposal.

Mr Evans —Disposal of computers.

Senator FAULKNER —So if, in fact, in 1998[hyphen]99 you actually received more than $207,000, would that be just a little bit of a windfall gain, would it?

Mr Nankervis —The receipts in excess of the $207,000 nominated for next year's budget would continue to be retained under an agreement with the Department of Finance and Administration. The limit, I understand, for where the receipts may have to go back or be shared with the Department of Finance and Administration are in the order of $1 million. So theoretically, we could earn a little more than $207,000 before facing that prospect.

Senator FAULKNER —Just so I am clear on that, with the disposal of the computer equipment, for example, how do those processes work?

Mr Nankervis —It is very similar to every other executive and parliamentary department. The goods are first of all obsolete or no longer required by the department for its operations. In our instance, we are looking at an upgrade of senators' computers—286s in years gone by, 386s last year and 486s this year—on the basis that they are not capable of keeping up with the technological trends that we have to provide to senators and to departmental staff. They are deemed to be surplus to requirements, and therefore they are disposed of.

Senator FAULKNER —I noted the quite significant reduction in running costs for the Black Rod's office. Do you have any general comments on that for the edification of the committee?

Mr Nankervis —That would be about $700,000.

Senator FAULKNER —That is right; from memory, it was about $700,000.

Mr Nankervis —That was a departmental re[hyphen]allocation.

Senator FAULKNER —Okay. That is very helpful!

Mr Nankervis —I can go further. On page 49 there is a schedule, table 6.2, which shows the estimated outlay for the current year and the underlying outlay for next year. There is a reduction of $734,000. Those matters are detailed in that table.

Senator FAULKNER —The description being `departmental re[hyphen]allocation'.

Mr O'Keeffe —Maybe I could add something. It is a question of pluses and minuses. If you look at page 48, it looks as if the Black Rod has overspent the budget for that office. That is not in fact the case. He has overspent the originally allocated budget, but he has done so on the basis of re[hyphen]allocations from other programs in order to take advantage of whatever purchasing opportunities there are before the end of the financial year.

Senator ROBERT RAY —We were under budget so we came up to budget through some advance purchasing?

Mr Evans —We certainly did not come up to budget by advance purchasing, but—

Senator ROBERT RAY —We closed the gap?

Mr Evans —Only marginally.

Senator ROBERT RAY —What things were involved in the advance purchasing?

Mr Evans —What equipment was involved in the purchasing?

Mr O'Keeffe —Computer equipment, essentially, and some furnishing purchases for the refurbishing of committee rooms—the chairs in committee rooms—and also our security contract.

Senator FAULKNER —I want to be clear about this. On page 49, table 6.2 lists `significant variations'. You have a departmental re[hyphen]allocation of minus $976,000. Let me know if you have answered my question as to what that is.

Mr O'Keeffe —That is a re[hyphen]allocation of $976,000 to the Black Rod's office from other programs in the department.

Senator FAULKNER —You are saying that it is in terms of services and the like? That obviously will not have any impact on administrative or logistical support?

Mr O'Keeffe —On the contrary, it was an opportunity for the Black Rod to enhance some of the services that he was delivering, for example, in the computer area by acquiring replacement computers for senators using underspent money from other programs.

Senator FAULKNER —In relation to Senate committees and the underspend there, I assume that is the outcome compared with previous years. Basically, we are seeing the effect of the fact that there have been no Senate select committees established. Would that be a reasonable summation of where we find ourselves?

Mr Evans —That is a large part of it. As you know, the department is funded for a certain level of select committee activity, that being unpredictable. Obviously, if the level of activity does not reach that level, there is a surplus. Inherent in that is an arrangement whereby the department is funded for a certain level of select committee activity. If you look at the table on page 34, you can see the level of the underspending, if you would like to put it that way.

Senator FAULKNER —Let us speak hypothetically for a moment. Hypothetically, if the Senate were to establish in relatively short order a Senate select committee into waterfront related matters, it would appear that the resources would be able to be quickly applied to the work of that committee. Would that be right?

Mr Evans —Yes, that is correct, and that is the whole basis—

Senator FAULKNER —That would be a relief to all senators, I am sure.

Mr Evans —That is the whole basis of that arrangement of funding of the committee office.

Senator MURRAY —Could I refer you to page 19 of the Senate portfolio budget statements. Paragraph 3 says that the program also shares the cost of administration and distribution of parliamentary papers with the Department of the House of Representatives. The allocation for this purpose in 1998-99 is $70,000. In December 1997, there was a publication on the future of the parliamentary papers series, which you might recall. In 1996 the Presiding Officer had proposed that the parliamentary papers should be discontinued, but before doing so sought advice from the Joint Standing Committee on Publications. The committee recommended in December 1997 that the series should continue in its present form until there is a viable replacement, thus indicating that it considers that that is not yet the case. Madam President, have the Presiding Officers responded to the committee's recommendations?

The PRESIDENT —We are still looking at it because the House of Representatives does not want to be involved and it is too costly for the Senate to do on its own. The House is now suggesting that there may be some other means of publishing that would be cheaper but still
achieve the objective. That is another matter that we will be looking at again, I think tomorrow.

Senator MURRAY —Do you think the House of Representatives is likely to maintain that attitude?

The PRESIDENT —I do; they have consistently since the report came out.

Senator MURRAY —If the Speaker decides to discontinue the contribution made by the Department of the House of Representatives, how would we plan to continue the parliamentary papers series?

The PRESIDENT —I doubt that we could on our own because of the cost. That was the advice that I had previously, that the cost was more than the Senate could cope with on its own.

Senator MURRAY —Why would that be? Simply because you do not provide it as a necessary priority given the amount of money? How much money could we afford?

The PRESIDENT —Originally, the Senate agreed that it not proceed and then it changed to support the continuation of the parliamentary papers, with the cost being shared between the two departments. If the cost is not shared between the two departments, the one that continues would have to bear the total cost.

Senator MURRAY —I cannot recall it in this report, but was any survey made of the benefits of the parliamentary papers and how they are used and provided?

Mr Evans —I think the committee took evidence from users and representatives of users and formed its recommendation on the basis of that.

Senator MURRAY —Namely, that it was desirable that it be retained?

Mr Evans —Yes.

The PRESIDENT —The Senate is of the view that it is desirable to be retained if that can be done.

Senator MURRAY —It really comes down to whether the money is available, is that right?

The PRESIDENT —Yes.

Senator MURRAY —And would $70,000 have covered it?

Mr Evans —It is not so much the question of finding the money as such or of not thinking it is an important priority as much as a reluctance on our part to have the whole cost of it transferred to the Senate department simply because the House of Representatives wants to terminate it. That would take away resources that are currently available in the Senate department for the use of senators. We are just reluctant to have that transfer of the total cost take place.

Senator MURRAY —But if they regard it of little value and we regard it of significant value, the only option is for us either to take it on ourselves or to drop it.

Mr Evans —Yes, that is correct. It may be that we can facilitate the re[hyphen]emergence of it in some form later on. Certainly, if the House of Representatives pulls out of the scheme, then the scheme will cease at the moment.

Senator MURRAY —Could Madam President take into her considerations the possibility of the Department of the Senate looking at alternative ways of keeping these things alive if the House of Representatives is adamant.

The PRESIDENT —We will. We are still discussing it with them in the hope that it might work out.

Senator MURRAY —Thank you. That is all I have.

Senator FAULKNER —We had, you would recall, Madam President, what was a fairly critical appropriations and staffing committee report into one of the proposals for the amalgamation of the parliamentary departments. I was just interested in knowing whether, since that matter had been dealt with by both the committee and the Senate itself, that had returned to the agenda at all.

The PRESIDENT —Only to the extent that all departments have been encouraged to work together and do things jointly, or one doing for another, to the greatest extent possible, but not amalgamation as such. If there are areas where they can do things for each other or one can do for others, these things are gradually being put in place to the benefit of all departments.

Senator FAULKNER —This is a proposal that has had, to varying degrees, some level of support from executive government, as you know, over the years. Is there any indication from the government that they are keen to progress this at all?

The PRESIDENT —No direct communication, but I do not for a minute interpret that to mean that they have changed their minds. But they certainly have not come up with anything they can put to us that you could look at that would substantiate the view that it is cheaper to run them amalgamated than it is now with the steps that are being taken.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Are you aware of evidence at the estimates committees in the last year that in the amalgamation of the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Finance—two very large amalgamations—the Department of Finance were arguing that there would be no savings from this amalgamation?

The PRESIDENT —Indirectly I suppose I have heard of it. I was not at the meeting.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I just thought you might like to store it in the back of your mind.

The PRESIDENT —I have noted it. I am anxious that where we can, we make proper savings in the running of the building—that somebody does something for all rather than everybody repeating things—but I have not had any proposal put to me that indicates that amalgamation beyond that is financially advantageous.

Senator FAULKNER —Madam President, you would be aware, of course, that the Speaker of the House of Representatives has guided through some changes in relation to where Hansard is sited in the House chamber, flags, floor seating, and the like. You would be aware of those changes in general that the Speaker has proposed to the House. Have you any view to propose any similar sorts of changes or related sorts of changes in the Senate chamber at all?

The PRESIDENT —No. The only thing I was tempted to do would be to move the leaders further down the table, but I thought that was probably unfair to Hansard.

Senator FAULKNER —I think that is most generous of you, because I would have thought a trapdoor might have been more—

The PRESIDENT —And fixed chairs that do not swivel crossed my mind, but I have no proposals in mind to make any changes. If I did, I would refer them to the leaders for the matter to be discussed.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I would like to raise a question in relation to presidential rulings, because I did not want to bring it up in the chamber. In relation to ruling out the term `lame duck', can you tell me on what basis that was done?

The PRESIDENT —Mainly that it is a fairly inelegant use of language and that it does not add in any way to the dignity of the debate or of the chamber. That is not the only word. There have been a lot of words used in recent times that basically come into the category of name calling, raising that section of the standing orders that relates to imputation about a colleague or senator. I think the place would be better without some of them.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I know that on 26 November 1981, Senator Keefe used the term and was not ruled out of order. On 10 September 1991, Senator Knowles used the term `lame duck' describing the Prime Minister. Senator Alston, who raised the point of order with you, used the term `lame duck' on 27 June 1994. Someone who you know very well raised it on two occasions on 4 October 1984. That being the case—that it was never knocked off before—I was wondering what had changed.

The PRESIDENT —It is perhaps not so much a change in respect of the two words themselves, but the atmosphere of the chamber and the number of epithets that, in a sense, are being used presently. It is not necessarily that that is worse than others.

Senator ROBERT RAY —`Epithet' by your interpretation implies—and it does not have to—that it is not a legitimate use. I checked back in one of the political dictionaries. I found that `lame duck' is essentially an American term coming out of Congress.

The PRESIDENT —I was not aware of that.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I might pass it on to you.

The PRESIDENT —My objection to it was not so much the words themselves but the general atmosphere of so much name calling—sledging—that has been going on in the place.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Madam President, I thought you could draw a distinction. Your objection to attaching `lame duck' to a question directed to a particular minister in his or her capacity as a minister is understandable. I understand that. But its general use in the chamber, I would have thought, was far more justified. You would draw the distinction between the two.

The PRESIDENT —Very likely.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I recommend that you have a look at that.

The PRESIDENT —I will. It is very likely. A phrase can have a meaning in a certain situation and not the same meaning in another situation. The tone of voice, body language and other things at the time also have a bearing on what it conveys.

Senator ROBERT RAY —There are terms with ducks: `sitting duck', `queer duck', `dead duck', et cetera. It is trying to get the precision of the meaning.

The PRESIDENT —I shall work out which ducks are acceptable and which are not.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Greg Chappell might be able to help you there. I will leave it at that.

Senator MURRAY —Madam President, you have said that there is an increasing level of complaints concerning standards in the Senate. As you know, I am a new senator. I do not know whether this is typical of a pre-election period and whether it happens every so many years in relation to the intensity levels. People here would be able to tell me that. I am more concerned with whether there are any moves afoot for the appropriate parliamentary bodies
to spend some time and money seeing if they can fix the problem of behaviour and public perceptions and reactions to it, to both survey the problems and find solutions to them.

The PRESIDENT —I am inclined to think that self-discipline is a significant aspect. And if that is correct, then I am not sure that money has much to do with finding a solution to the problem.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Do you think that, in the time you have been President, you have been personally vilified from the floor of the House?

The PRESIDENT —No, not really. There may have been a couple of occasions, but not really.

Senator ROBERT RAY —You would concede that President Beahan was vilified from the floor of the House on numerous occasions?

The PRESIDENT —He was.

Senator ROBERT RAY —So things are not that bad?

The PRESIDENT —The level of noise—the level of sledging across the chamber—I personally find unacceptable and fairly unedifying. I think it is a pity for people watching or listening who do not understand the interaction of the people in the same way as I might or you might, because you know them. Others who do not know them in the same way interpret it differently. But I think the level of noise has been far too high.

Senator MURRAY —That is really the purpose of my question. We do become used to it—which is a pity in some ways—but also we understand it in terms of the dynamics of the place. It seems to me from what you have said—and I may be wrong, and that is why I asked the question—that public reaction is stronger and more critical than it has been in the past.

The PRESIDENT —That is my impression. The clerk would probably know more than I do, because he would have seen correspondence and heard about it in the past in a way that I perhaps would not have.

Senator MURRAY —That is what I meant by measuring it or surveying it. Is there any way in which we could see that, in 1997, we had X number of complaints compared with 1987?

Mr Evans —You could obviously count the number of complaining letters, I suppose. You would have to take account of the nature of the complaints, I suppose. It is my impression that there are now more letters and telephone calls coming in from disgruntled citizens complaining about question time in particular—only about question time, in fact.

The PRESIDENT —It is a pity that people tend to focus on that and not other debates that go on.

Senator FAULKNER —It is live on the television. It is hardly surprising.

The PRESIDENT —Exactly.

Senator FAULKNER —It is absolutely inevitable that that will be the focus of public attention.

The PRESIDENT —But the people who see that do not know of the orderly fashion in which debates, and particularly the committee stage of debates, take place during the rest of the day—which they do, especially the committee stage. If you are interested in the topic, the debates are usually interesting, informative and very worthwhile exchanges between people.

Senator MURRAY —Could I request, Madam President, that you give consideration to a system which many organisations pursue, and that is to keep a record of the complaints, both
written and verbal—and obviously we do not need names, phone numbers and so on, just numbers—so we can track this over time. The senator makes the proper comment: it has to be like on like.

The PRESIDENT —I do not know whether that is available. The clerk says that probably can be done.

Senator FAULKNER —I have provided the President with the one letter that I have personally received in relation to my own behaviour. What a fine example it was. It is one nil, still in my favour.

The PRESIDENT —One nil, and I kept it.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I have a question for the clerk. The statement by the minister for communications on 13 May to the Senate as regards the `discloseability'—if that is the word—of documents relied on three premises: that it was likely to contaminate the discovery process; that it was sub judice; and that documents disclosed in the discovery process are confidential. Would you like to give us a quick summary of your views on those three claims in a historical context in terms of the way the Senate has approached it?

Mr Evans —The sub judice convention in the Senate, in past rulings of presidents and in expositions of it in the Senate, is very much focused on whether there is a likelihood of causing legal proceedings to miscarry. It has generally been regarded that that likelihood is not great unless a jury trial is involved. The whole hypothesis of the sub judice convention is that jurors might be influenced and might decide a case on what they have read in the newspapers about debate in the Senate rather than on the evidence before them, or that perhaps witnesses might be influenced. Where no jury is involved and the matter is being tried before judges alone, the risk is very small, because judges are not likely to take any notice of what is said in parliament and are even less likely to be influenced by it. It is fundamentally a jury protection thing. That is how the courts have also regarded it in recent times.

The formulation in the minister's statement of the sub judice convention appears not to have regard to the way it is applied in the Senate or the way it has been applied in other legislatures or indeed in the courts in recent times. The other parts of the minister's statement are a bit difficult, because it is not entirely clear what is meant by it. In particular, it is not clear to me what is meant by `contamination of the discovery process'. What the statement appears to be saying is that if these documents are given to the Senate they will become public, and if they are not given to the public they would not otherwise become public, which is an obvious statement. The whole purpose of the Senate asking for documents is to have them disclosed. I am not sure whether there is anything more in the statement other than that—simply a desire to have the documents remain confidential.

The Federal Court will determine what documents should be produced to it and what documents are admissible in evidence and the whole conduct of those civil actions before the court that the minister referred to. The Federal Court is not likely to be diverted from its course by anything that happens in the Senate. The Federal Court is not likely to say, `This document has been tabled in the Senate and therefore we will have to admit it in evidence.' Courts do not decide on the admissibility of evidence in that fashion. It is difficult to see what is being suggested in that part of the statement.

Senator MURRAY —With respect to the same advice that Senator Ray is referring to, have you made that advice available to the President?

Mr Evans —No, not as yet.

Senator MURRAY —Do you intend to do so?

Mr Evans —Yes, I will provide that to the President. As you know, that was provided to other senators very late yesterday.

Senator MURRAY —Yes.

CHAIR —There being no further questions on program 1, we will move to program 2—Table Office. There being no questions, we will move to program 3—Procedure Office.

[9.36 a.m.]