Senator MACKAY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister inform the Senate of the current status of the expenditure of funds in her department's labour market programs? Can the minister confirm that Tasmania's labour market program allocation for the year is $51.304 million? Is the minister aware that these funds are being spent at the rate of $310,000 per week and that expenditure needs to be at least $736,000 per week to be on track on a pro rata basis for the year? How does the minister justify a potential shortfall of $4 million to $5 million in spending on programs for the unemployed in the state of Tasmania alone, a state with a double-digit unemployment rate?

Senator VANSTONE —These questions were canvassed at the estimates committee hearing last night. I do not know whether you had popped home on that occasion or were doing something else more interesting. Nonetheless, these questions were canvassed specifically with respect to Tasmania. The answer you were given last night was that the officers present did not have the information for Tasmania. You then indicated that you were interested on a national basis—whoever asked the question indicated that.

Senator Carr —She had gone home?

Senator VANSTONE —You were there, were you? Gee, I must have missed you. So dramatic and devastating is your presence that it passed me by—I am sorry.

Senator Carr —You weren't paying attention, as usual.

Senator VANSTONE —Actually, you were there. I do apologise, Senator. You were there and you were your usual smiling self.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator VANSTONE —Keep going on! Banter, banter, banter! I remember saying that this government would be more accountable to parliament and would not want to have the subcontracts of the previous government, which hid, for example, how much the ever-so-honest Bill Hunter got for doing the Working Nation projects. I remember you saying under your breath to me, `I might know how much he got, but I'm not going to tell you.' I remembered that slightly ungenerous remark of yours, last night. We know that it was sufficient to be surprised when he went bankrupt within a few years. We know it was that much—quite a lot, to be sincere. Of course, you evaded accountability to parliament by having the fees that he was paid in a subcontract that parliament will never be able to get at.

Getting back to the questions that you asked last night, since you obviously were not listening, let me remind you what you were told. You were told that the figures for Tasmania were not available last night and, I am sorry, I went home at half past one. I did not rush down to the department and say, `Get me this answer by 9 o'clock in the morning.' You were told you would get the answer as soon as we could possibly get it and give it to you. If I was meant to go down to the department at half past one in the morning and bring people out of their beds to get an answer for you at 9 o'clock in the morning, I am sorry, I did not do that. I apologise—something you can never do. We will get you the answer as soon as we can possibly can.

Gary Gray indicated in the Four Corners report that the Labor Party would be in a better position if you were ever able to apologise, but you just could not ever bring yourselves to do it. The first thing you were told, as I have said, is that the figures for Tasmania were not immediately available. You were also given some clear indications on a national basis.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senators on my left, please be quiet.

Senator VANSTONE —You were also given some clear indications on a national basis of the spending in labour market program areas which was regarded as being pretty much on track. You were told that, when we had further information, we would come back and give it to you. It is now 20 past 10. I do not know whether the information will be available by half past 10. I am reasonably confident it will not be. As soon as we can get some information, we will bring it to you.

You were also told that it is a general broad appropriation for labour market programs which is then notionally divided within the department. These are not budgetary allocations you are talking about; they are notional allocations made within the department. You were also told the reasons for that, devised, in fact, by the previous government: because labour market funding is traditionally very difficult to track. That is why we have the capacity—the previous government had it for three or four years—to shift funding between labour market programs and to bring forward money if you overspend, as you people did last year spending 12 months of money in nine months, and, of course, to carry over money if there is an underspend. That flexibility is there because these things are traditionally hard to track.

The other point that was made to you last night, which you might have forgotten by now, is that December and January are traditionally the lowest spending months for labour market programs. (Time expired)

Senator MACKAY —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you and I know very well that area managers are required to provide monthly reports on labour market program expenditure. So I was amazed at the estimates yesterday when that information could not be provided. Can the minister explain what you intend to do with any funds allocated to specific labour market programs which are not fully expended by the end of the financial year?

Senator VANSTONE —`By the end of the financial year.' Let's put a bit of emphasis on the end of the question, make it sound more important than it is. I am trying to ensure, and the department is constantly monitoring these matters to see, that money provided actually gets to unemployed people. That is what it is allocated for. As I indicated to you last night, but you were not listening and you are not listening this morning, there is a capacity to carry forward some moneys, but I am not planning on being in that position. What we are trying to ensure—as I am sure you did when you were in government—is that the money allocated does get out and is used usefully within a range of labour market programs around Australia. Tasmania is important, but it is no more important to me than any other state or territory.