Senator HARRADINE(5.20 p.m.) —I do not intend to vote for this amendment. The matters were thoroughly canvassed on the last occasion when an amendment of similar purpose was not accepted by the Senate.

As Senator Hill has said, there are state advisory committees and there will be a number of other committees through which all of these matters, or a number of them, will be canvassed. Ultimately, it does have to be in the hands of the ministers to determine the issues—and the buck should stop there. We in this chamber and elsewhere would then have the opportunity, if we or any of our constituents are dissatisfied with the way the disbursements have taken place, of challenging the ministers; that could be done here, in the estimates committees and elsewhere.

I think, frankly, there are too many statutory boards where there is not that sort of accountability that we need. I believe that the accountability ought to be `political accountability'. The minister—that is to say, Senator Hill and Mr Anderson—is correct when he indicates that it is the board which should wear the decisions, and wear them publicly.

Do you think for a moment that, if there were any justification at all in any complaint by any organisation or any group within a particular state that had put forward a project which fitted all of the other prescriptions in this legislation, they would not complain and that we would not take the matter up here if it were a bone fide complaint? Of course we would. That is in the hands of every member of parliament.

Frankly, I do not agree with a number of the statutory boards. It is very hard at times to get answers from the estimates committees about the activities of some of the statutory authorities that are governed by boards. It is better, in my view, to have the final decision taken by the political board consisting of the two ministers and have them held responsible in a political fashion.