Senator FORSHAW (2:20 PM) —My question is directed to Senator Alston, representing the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Is the minister aware that a letter from the Secretary to the Department of Education, Science and Training was tabled in the parliament yesterday by the minister for education? Can the minister confirm that this letter, which purports to provide an accurate account of the censorship of the National report on higher education 2001, claims that the minister for education was not formally briefed on the report at any time prior to 23 July 2003? How does this assertion possibly fit with evidence from departmental officers given to the Senate estimates hearings on 5 June 2003 that what was described by the secretary as the final draft version of this report had been sent to the minister in the first quarter of the year?

Senator ALSTON (Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —I can only take the assertions of the secretary at face value—

Senator Carr —Weren't you at estimates?

Senator ALSTON —If Senator Carr has a photographic recollection of what was said at estimates, he is a better man than I am.

Senator Carr —It is in the Hansard; read the Hansard!

Senator ALSTON —Can I suggest that, if you think that someone who has asked a question without notice should be able to instantly read the Hansard, you are a lot further advanced in terms of technology then we are. We actually have to go back and look at the record—either read the Hansard online or in hard copy. We cannot just conjure it up, unfortunately. I envy your psychic skills; if you are able to do that then that is a magnificent achievement. But, unfortunately, in order to assess that statement against what was said in the estimates committee, one would obviously have to go back and check the record and make sure that they were talking about the same subject matter and generally explore the proposition. All I can do is reiterate what is contained in the letter, of which I do have a copy: that Minister Nelson was not formally briefed on the report by the department at any time before July 2003. One is entitled to assume that, as this letter was written and signed yesterday, it takes into account what was said at the estimates committee at an earlier point in time.

Senator FORSHAW —Mr President, I rise to ask a supplementary question. I ask: can the minister also confirm that, contrary to the secretary's claim in the letter, editing began on that report in April 2002; that the consultants Ray Adams and Associates had been commissioned for this work in June 2001; and that formatting, indexing and other final preparations for publication had been completed by April 2002? Who is to be believed on these matters—the departmental officers who gave evidence before a parliamentary committee or a minister desperately trying to cover up his own incompetence?

Senator ALSTON (Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —I am sure that it is not the latter, Mr President. Once again, one cannot simply conjure up what might have been provided by Senator Forshaw by way of information about who did what back in 2001. What I can say, from the letter from the secretary, is that, in November 2002 or thereabouts, the department took the decision to remove material regarding HECS that had recently become the subject of media reporting. The decision was made because of the department's concerns in relation to the methodological difficulties inherent in analysis of this kind and the incompleteness and inconclusiveness of some of the findings, which meant that it did not have a valid place in the report. If you do not agree with that logic then I would be very interested to hear your contrary approach. In other words, if you accept that there were methodological difficulties which did not convey a true and accurate picture then I would not have thought that you would be suggesting that they should have been left in the report. It is the obligation, one presumes, to get it right— and that is what was done on this occasion. (Time expired)