Senator COOK (12:58 PM) —Can I go for a moment to clause 5 of the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I might, for the sake of convenience and to save time, read into Hansard a couple of provisions of clause 5 grants. This is the clause under which the bill sets out the authority of a government to disburse these taxpayer funds. Subclause (1) of clause 5 says:

This subsection does not limit the ways in which amounts appropriated under this Act may be applied.

Subclause (2), which deals with financial assistance to the states, says:

A grant of financial assistance to a State may be made:

(a) on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the State; or

(b) without any terms and conditions.

Subclause (3) says:

A grant of financial assistance to a person, or a body, other than a State may be made:

(a) on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the person or body; or

(b) without any terms and conditions.

Subclause (4) says:

An agreement under (2)(a) or (3)(a) may be entered into by any Minister on behalf of the Commonwealth.

Clause 6, which is concerned with delegation, says that a minister may delegate to the secretary of his department, someone approved by the Governor-General or a senior public servant, the task of allocating these funds. All up, we are dealing with a program here of $896 million over four years—and $896 million dollars is not a small amount of money.

My question through you, Mr Chairman, to the minister is this: given that we are dealing with an amount so large—indeed, even if we were dealing with $1, and only that amount—why is it that the government wants in this bill a provision that says, in (2)(b), pertaining to states, `without any terms and conditions', and in (3)(b), pertaining to a person or a body, `without any terms and conditions'?

I would submit that it is unusual in the extreme that funds of this amount, $896 million, could qualify to be handed out, as this bill will provide, without any terms and conditions. My question to the minister is: what precedent is there in previous legislation for funds of this amount, $896 million, or any amount, to be handed out by a minister or the nominee of the minister, who may be a public servant, `without any terms and conditions', to quote from the legislation? That is the question, and I might just supplement it with some argument.

`Without any terms and conditions' provides carte blanche for the government to legally hand out money, presumably within the meaning of this bill, but without insisting on reciprocal performance, without insisting on, as the provisions provide, any terms or conditions whatsoever. These are taxpayers' funds, and surely the government, when it considered this, made a conscious decision to provide no strings at all.

I do not know of any precedent for this. I have sought information about precedent. I am advised by reputable authorities that there is no precedent. So my first question is: on what basis do you make this decision? As my second question I ask: why do you seek to have absolutely untrammelled power to give away money from the public purse—to quote from the bill—`without any terms and conditions'? What is the motive?