Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (09:51): At first blush, the motion which is before us would appear to be innocuous. We do see from time to time, before estimates committee hearings, motions to rearrange agencies within the various committees and between the various committees. I might say, we have seen that a fair bit under this government. It would be fair to say that they have had more than their fair share of reshuffles—some occasioned by the odd change of Prime Minister, others not. We have seen, I think, a larger than usual number of changes of responsibilities for estimates committees in motions presented to the Senate. And there has been a bit of sloppiness in that. I do take Senator Brandis's point that there might be some inappropriate motives for some of the changes to these committees but I also think there is a little bit of sloppiness. We have seen some of that sloppiness before in ministerial reshuffles and ministerial arrangements. As Senator Brandis mentioned, there was that, 'Oops, I forgot,' moment when the current Prime Minister forgot to appoint an education minister. That was not the only thing that she forgot to do in that particular reshuffle. In my own portfolio of disabilities she forgot to appointment anyone with responsibility for disabilities, initially. Then there was a change in title for Senator McLucas; she had disabilities added. And in the last reshuffle Minister Macklin had disabilities added to her title, which I think is a good thing. Again, I put that down to sloppiness. I do not put that down to bad intent; I just put it down to good old-fashioned administrative incompetence—nothing more than that; nothing less. So we have seen a bit of a pattern under this government. I do not want to refer to the area of social inclusion but I will. We have had an occasion where the government have remembered to appoint someone to a portfolio but that person does not actually know what the portfolio means. When asked, 'What does it mean?'' Minister Butler now famously said of his portfolio, social inclusion, 'It means different things to different people.' But that is a separate issue. It is a portfolio. Someone has been appointed but they do not actually know what their job is. The very significant concern which we have is that of the transfer of responsibilities—particularly tertiary education and VET—from the education committee to the economics committee. I know that there would be those in the government who would say VET and the tertiary sector are very economically significant. I know that Senator Mason is always saying how economically significant tertiary education and VET are and how tertiary education is one of Australia's major export industries. There is no greater advocate for the economic significance of the tertiary education sector than Senator Mason. So I would not be surprised at all to hear those on the other side say, 'It is logical, really; these are economically significant portfolios.' But there are a whole heap of economically significant portfolios. Senator Brandis: Transport. Senator FIFIELD: You could mount that argument about transport, as Senator Brandis said. But we have an education committee. I can imagine vice-chancellors tuning into the Senate education estimates committee. I am sure they often do, Senator Mason. They will be waiting, waiting, waiting, and they will not get to see Senator Mason. They will be bereft! They will be very disappointed. I made that point with some humour but there is a serious point there: we have an education committee and it really defies logic why you would not have the tertiary and VET components of that portfolio in the education committee. The economics committee has a very heavy workload. And you may not have noticed but Senator Cormann and Senator Bushby in particular have no shortage of questions to ask in that committee. They do a sensational job of holding the government to account in the best Westminster traditions. They are truly forensic in their working through of the portfolio outcomes. That committee has some very important public policy matters before it. There is the carbon tax and the MRRT, and then there is that little old issue of the budget surplus—whether we are going to get back into budget surplus. That is just a very minor issue of public policy that the economics committee looks after! Those very important areas of consideration are going to be squeezed out by tertiary education and VET. No offence to tertiary education and VET; they should have their place, but their place is in the education estimates committee. Senator Brandis touched on something which I think is a factor in the government's consideration—that is, seeking to deny time and space for the consideration of the effects of the carbon tax on the Australian economy and the effects of the MRRT on the Australian economy, particularly in Western Australia. If there is one thing that this government wants to provide the absolute minimum of time for it is examining the likelihood of the budget going into surplus in the next financial year. That is an examination which this government is terrified of. And I think that what we see before us today is an indication of that. There is, unfortunately, a growing tendency by this government to abuse the Senate estimates process. You may recall that once upon a time Senate estimates committees would meet through the night. They would sometimes sit until 3 am in the morning. Senator Ludwig: You weren't here then. Senator FIFIELD: I was not here. That is why I am posing the question to someone who may have been, Senator Ludwig. Senator Brandis: Senator Macdonald was. He speaks about it. Senator FIFIELD: Senator Macdonald certainly was. There was at that time, I understand, an informal agreement reached between the then government and the then opposition. It was: we will not sit until three in the morning; we will finish at 11 o'clock at night. But the quid pro quo was that while that would be to the benefit of the government of the day the time in estimates would fundamentally be for the opposition. Of course, all senators have the right to ask their questions but the government recognised that Senate estimates is fundamentally a time for the opposition. In recognising that, the Senate supported one of the important accountability mechanisms of this place. That was the understanding; that was the compact which was entered into. There has been an erosion of that compact over recent years under this government, where, increasingly, government senators have sought, in effect, to put dorothy dixers to government ministers at the table—not genuine questions, not questions seeking information, not questions seeking to represent a constituent and not questions seeking to hold a minister to account, which it is quite legitimate for people of the same party to seek to do from time to time. That is not the purpose of these questions—and you have almost come in on cue, may I say, Senator Cameron, to the subject matter of my discussion! But I will go no further on that because I do not want in any way to reflect on the chair, Senator Cameron.