Senator COOK (4:51 PM) —I can foreshadow that I think I am very close to the end of my questioning. I do that out of courtesy, because this has gone on longer than we had anticipated. In view of what has now developed in the chamber, can I also put a series of questions to the minister. I say, in a similar sympathetic way to the way in which Senator Sherry has expressed himself, that if the minister is unable at this point to answer them then I would be grateful if he would take them on notice and provide an answer to us with reasonable dispatch but in due course.

Looking at pages 2 and 3 of the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 and at those programs under the heading of clause 3, `Appropriation', we have dealt with program 1, the conversion of diesel fuelled trucks and buses to CNG and LPG. For programs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, can I ask these questions. What is the administrative component of the outlays proposed under each of those programs? That is, how much of the money appropriated goes to the administration of those programs as opposed to moneys going to the implementation of those programs—moneys going to bring about the result? Under each of those programs there is a second question: what does the government expect will be the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as a consequence of the implementation of the programs for the outlay of the funds set down?

Thirdly, is there an administrative plan as to how the implementation of each of these programs is to be proceeded with or are they like program 1 and not yet blessed with having an administrative plan? If they are not, would the minister say so and indicate when each of those programs will have a plan in which the parliament will be able to see how these measures, which total $896 million, will in fact be dealt with. I am particularly interested to see under 7, `Greenhouse gas abatement program', in which $400 million is being outlaid, what that money is going to and how the administrative arrangements are to be handled for that particular program. I am also a bit nonplussed, I must say, in reading program 2, `Developing a product stewardship system for the reuse and recycling of waste oil', to see we are spending $60 million over four years on that program. Sixty million dollars to develop `a product stewardship system' seems to me to be an excessive amount of money to develop a system. It seems to me that a reasonable question would be: please explain why that costs $60 million?

To conclude—and I appreciate I am jumping around the place here—I draw attention to program 5, which has the crisply explained note `Supporting the use of renewable energy for remote power generation'. Mr Temporary Chairman Lightfoot, I know that this is a matter of some interest to you in the state that we both represent, Western Australia, albeit that you are on the wrong side of politics. Nonetheless, I acknowledge your interest in issues concerning remote Australia. How many remote power stations or remote establishments generating power—if they cannot be dignified with the `power station' title—does the government propose to move to renewable energy for the cost of $264 million?

In the context of that, I have a further question: does the government intend to support the tidal power generation project at Derby under this program? I am sure, Minister, as you are a Western Australian as well—we seem to almost have this debate among ourselves at the moment—you would know that there is considerable interest in Western Australia in supporting a quite ambitious but, as best as I can ascertain it, entirely credible and quite substantial program in harnessing tidal energy in Derby, where the tidal drop is about 30 feet or more each time the tide goes out.

It is a quite credible program to go to tidal power generation using the tidal fall as the energy source. The capital cost of this program is quite high, although once you establish it, it seems to me, it goes on forever virtually and it pays itself off reasonably quickly, both in terms of reduced tariff and in opening up the opportunity—in and around the Derby area and further out towards Fitzroy Crossing and to the north of Derby—to go over to renewable energy, away from coal-, oil- or gas-fired energy, and to create prospects for that region of Australia for some industrial development based on fuel costs. That is an excellent program that I support strongly—and I know that some members of the coalition do too—but my question relating to this is: is this a program under which that type of project or that particular project will be funded?

Rather than go through these painstakingly, I think that, if the government would be prepared to answer those questions, that would mollify my concerns about this bill to quite a considerable extent. Clearly, there are other matters that we could go into, some of which may arise as a consequence of the answers given to these questions. I do signal here and mark the spot at this point that, if there are further questions that arise from these answers, I would want to pursue those questions in the next round of estimates when it comes up. But that is in anticipation of the answers not being adequate; I seek now only an acknowledgment from the government that it will answer those questions properly.