Senator HARRADINE(8.20 p.m.) —I thank Senator Cook for that. I wonder aloud what the committee is really wanting to achieve. Is it wanting to achieve a clear understanding for the electors of what is going to be the bottom line of a government and alternative government running for the next however many years—three years? Is that what we are about? I really do not know what all this is about, unless you are looking to a situation whereby the public will be able to receive professional advice from the Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary to the Department of Finance as to what is the bottom line. If you vote this crowd in, that is going to be the bottom line financially and economically for this country. If you vote that lot in, that is going to be the bottom line economically.

You say `minor parties'. Okay, we will do away with the navy. What is that going to cost or save? Where does that get you when you are talking about costing minor party programs? Are the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury and the Secretary to the Department of Finance ultimately going to determine this? Are they the ones who will say, `Overall, this is what it is going to cost in total,' for all of the policies that are going to be put to the people by the government and the alternative government presumably or theoretically at least dealing with all aspects of public policy for the running of government?

I do not know whether that is the way we are going or not. This is what has worried me. There has been something niggling the back of my mind about this particular proposal—this whole measure of the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill. Something has been niggling the back of my mind and that is it.

I am sorry, but one other thing that has been niggling the back of my mind is whether this is going to politicise the Public Service. I know that we have some full and frank discussions with public servants when they come before the estimates committees. They are quite helpful with the information that they give, but very often you can see that government departments have got certain policies which are not necessarily the policies of the particular government. I am saying that, from my experience over the last 21 or 22 years in this place, you do get government departments with a policy which may be in conflict with the government's policy—there is no doubt about that. It might not be overtly in conflict, but it is the general culture of that particular department. With this whole measure, are we likely to politicise the Public Service? I am sorry to throw those two points in, but they have been worrying me.