Senator PARER --I notice on page 127 that you have direct cost per employee, which presumably is wages, direct salary, and then you have got indirect cost per employee, which I am pleased to see. Presumably that indirect cost is not the system that the other departments have been using where they have taken the total cost and divided it by the number of employees. I would just like you to describe to me what is the meaning of the words indirect cost per employee.

Mr Clarke --That is correct, it is not identical. If you add the two you come to the same answer, so in 1991-92 the total of $87,000 would be the same result as the method previously described. Within our accounting system we are distinguishing between those costs that are attributed to billable work and those costs that are attributed to overheads. That is the difference between direct and indirect.

Senator PARER --I am not sure that we are comparing apples with apples. It seems that what you have got there is the additional direct cost per employee. It does not include, I think, some of the overhead costs that would be a general overhead charge.

Mr Clarke --Yes, it does. The total of the $56,000 plus the $31,000 is the exact same attribution of all costs as in all other DAS businesses.

Senator PARER --So it is not costs related, on average, to a particular employee?

Mr Clarke --It is a way of dividing our total cost up into a direct and indirect classification, and only then dividing by the employees.

Senator PARER --So it includes not only overheads, as you have said--rent and all that sort of thing--

Mr Clarke --Correct.

Senator PARER --But also the indirect costs that relate to a particular employee, whether for long service leave or--

Mr Clarke --That is correct. All of those costs are included.

Senator PARER --A strange way of doing it.