Ms KERNOT (2:55 PM) —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, I refer to Employment National's 2000 annual report, which reveals a massive operating loss of $92 million after a profit of $72 million the previous year. I ask: Minister, how much of this loss was caused by you forcing Employment National to hand back 79,000 lucrative intensive assistance Job Network 1 contracts? How much of this loss was caused by you forcing Employment National to accept non-viable job matching contracts under Job Network 2? Minister, do you accept responsibility for these decisions and the $92 million loss that they helped to create?

Mr FAHEY (Minister for Finance and Administration) —The honourable member for Dickson referred to the annual report which was tabled yesterday in the House. The report confirmed what was stated in the budget. In fact, it confirmed what the government announced in early February this year—that it had made a decision to keep Employment National operational. It recognised that Employment National provided a valuable service in the employment creation area and it provided assistance for people seeking jobs, particularly in rural and regional Australia. That was the basis of the decision earlier this year. The budget this year indicated that there would be a $54 million contribution over a three-year period whilst the company went through the restructuring.

Mr FAHEY —Oh, just be patient! The honourable member for Dickson asked me whether this loss was a result of handing back the intensive assistance contracts that expired at the end of February this year. When the decision was made to continue on with Employment National, when the decision was made to accept the contracts in December last year—

Ms Kernot —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Government members interjecting—

Ms Kernot —It is not a frivolous point of order; it goes to relevance. I asked quite specifically how much of this loss was caused by two specific actions taken by the minister.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Dickson will resume her seat. By any measure, the minister is being relevant to the question asked, and I call him.

Mr FAHEY —I would have thought I was being too good. The honourable member asked me why the government continued—

Ms Kernot —By how much?

Mr SPEAKER —Order! Members are aware that if they wish the standing orders to be amended so that answers are more specific than the standing orders currently require, they can seek to amend those orders. Currently the standing orders are being abided by, just as they have been as long for as I have been a member of this chamber.

Mr FAHEY —Obviously they have little or no regard for those programs of the government that assist people in getting jobs. The question related to the intensive assistance contracts. The question was: why were they handed back; why weren't they continued; how much loss occurred as a result of their being handed back?

Mr FAHEY —Right. If you are just patient! Quite clearly the advice that was given in respect of those intensive assistance programs, which expired at the end of February this year—in other words, within a very short period of time of when the decision was made—was that, if there had been a continuation of those programs and a running down of those programs past the expiry time at the end of February, it could have led to further losses of between $8 million and $14 million. To suggest that we should have kept those contracts on is plainly ludicrous.

As I have said, the government made a decision to continue with Employment National. It gave the necessary support. It assisted the board going through the restructuring, matching its revenue and the work that it was doing to gain revenue, significantly reduced from the Job Network 1 area, and keeping in place a number of the offices of Employment National. To have closed it down at that time would have brought a further 750 job losses, particularly in rural and regional Australia. We believe it has a contribution to make in assisting people to get jobs, and we will continue to back it. The budget showed $54 million, and that $54 million is exactly the same figure that is referred to as the contribution that is coming from the budget in the annual report that was released and tabled yesterday.