Mr Winder — At the last session of the committee, we advised the committee that we believed the repayments for Mr McGauran would be included in the tabling that we had in March. Unfortunately, this morning we found out that the last page of the repayments in his record was not included. It was sent to the printers but it was not included. With your agreement, I will now provide this page to the committee.

Senator MURRAY —Is it possible that any other pages were left out, and would you know?

Mr Winder — I hope not.

Senator MURRAY —Is someone going to check?

Mr Winder — It is a very lengthy document, but we will be checking now, yes.

Senator Ellison —I think this was only learnt today.

Mr Winder — Yes, this morning.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I have a number of questions and the first goes to an answer I received—I had raised it at an earlier committee hearing—to question No. 471. I asked for a calculation of the approximate cost of collecting the $14 per month from MPs for their home telephone number which, quite often now, is a monthly affair. The department has tried its best and has come up with a figure that the cost of collection is $68,000 per annum. Is that right? That is the best guess, I suppose, is it?

Mr Skrzypek — Yes, that is an estimate.

Senator ROBERT RAY —That is understandable. I have done my own estimate of what you collect—and I could be wrong here—and I assume all office holders and others are covered. I have had to make an assumption that about 160 to 224 members pay this. They are actually paying $30,000 to the department. We may have a situation where it is costing the
department—let alone the members and senators who have to use envelopes, stamps, cheques and all the rest of it—$68,000 to collect a maximum of $30,000.

Mr Winder — That is a matter that we have under review at the moment.

Senator ROBERT RAY —It has been under review for a while. Do you mind taking a suggestion from me?

Mr Winder — Certainly.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I suggest that you put a submission to the Remuneration Tribunal and have the electoral allowance of all members and senators deducted by that amount per month, even globally once a year. You will be $68,000 ahead and we will all be better off.

Mr Winder — Thank you for the suggestion, Senator.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I hope something can be done about it because if you told the tax office it was going to cost them $68,000 to collect $30,000 in revenue they would say, `Hold on, we've got the ratios wrong somewhere.'

I now refer to another answer I have received. I asked about flags, particularly desk top flags. Again, I must commend the department for the speed and accuracy of their response. I do appreciate it. It could not have been an easy task to get the information. Can I first of all confirm that the guidelines that I have read remain extant—they have not been changed in the last few months or couple of years?

Mr Skrzypek — That is correct.

Senator ROBERT RAY —This specifies that there are certain restrictions on who you can give flags too—desk top flags.

Mr Skrzypek — Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERT RAY —For the benefit of the committee, would you quickly like to outline those restrictions?

Mr Skrzypek — I will quote from page 85 of the guidelines on senators and members entitlements, which is the most recent iteration of this. I refer to the section headed `flags entitlement' which states:

In addition, the National Flag, the Aboriginal Flag and the Torres Strait Islander Flag are available for distribution to eligible bodies. These include schools, local councils, churches and other non-profit or benevolent community organisations, associations and groups which have occasion to display the flag from flag poles on their premises or which display the flag on special public occasions or in halls or meeting rooms.

Flags are also available for community organisations, Australian exchange students and humanitarian aid workers undertaking official visits or duties overseas.

Flags should not be made available under this program to businesses, commercial enterprises or private individuals (with the exception of exchange students and humanitarian aid workers).

Senator ROBERT RAY —I see. That certainly accords. Thank you for that. So if I were to hand out flags outside Victoria Park before the football or at the local show willy-nilly, I would be in breach of the guidelines?

Mr Skrzypek —I hesitate to give you a definitive answer on that, because the next paragraph after the one that I have just outlined says:

Senators and Members are to exercise their discretion in determining eligible recipients.

All I can say is what that statement says, and I would be reluctant to comment on hypothetical situations.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Okay.

Senator BROWNHILL —Can I answer that question? You can present them to the local agricultural show society—seeing that you were talking about outside a show. You are saying that you cannot hand them out willy-nilly to anyone, but you can outside a show I think you said. And I said you can, as I understand it, hand them out to a show society or something like that.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes. I am talking about whether it is okay to go along to your local show—not the Royal Melbourne—and get boxes of flags and hand them out to everyone you see. I cannot read anything in here that would justify that behaviour—not even with the discretion clause. It certainly can't mean that, can it?

Mr Skrzypek —I am sorry; I have read the—

Senator ROBERT RAY —Mr Winder, have you read the guidelines?

Mr Winder —Yes, I have.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Do you think that handing them out willy-nilly to strangers at a local show can ever be regarded as being within those guidelines?

Mr Winder —It does not seem to fit within those guidelines.

Senator ROBERT RAY —No. It does not seem to fit with my knowledge of it. About this question on notice, I have asked over three financial years for just the Victorian members and senators—of whom there are 49, in all, I think—and these figures show, don't they, that three members and senators in the period 1997-98 ordered more than 100 desk top flags? Have you got that table in front of you?

Mr Skrzypek —I am just turning to it, Senator. Which year were you referring to?

Senator ROBERT RAY —I am not quoting from your answer. I have actually broken them out for more readability. I am not saying that you did not. But, for the year 1997[hyphen]98, we have three members of parliament in the hundreds, don't we?

Mr Skrzypek —That is correct.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Mr Nugent ordered 112 flags in that particular year, Mr Reith ordered 150 and Mr Broadbent ordered 562: is that right?

Mr Skrzypek —Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERT RAY —And Mrs. Bailey—wait for it, folks—ordered 2,840 flags that year. Is that right?

Mr Skrzypek —Yes.

Senator ROBERT RAY —For that year, there was a total cost to the taxpayer of $24,992.

Mr Skrzypek —I have not done the calculations.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I am sorry. If anyone has a calculator here, they could be better than I am at it. Let us multiply 2,840 by $8.80. Mr Gouldson, can you do that while I continue, if you have your calculator with you? Thank you. Let us go through the 1998 figures. Who went into the hundreds there? Mr Broadbent ordered 262, and Mr Reith, with 100, comes in equal second, while Senator Troeth ordered 100 and Mr Wooldridge got 100, trailing down to Senator Patterson with two and Mr Barry Jones with two, Anna Burke with three, and Mrs Bailey with 2,000 that year. Is that right?

Mr Skrzypek —Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I do not know whether Mr Gouldson can help me out again, but this time we have 2,000 by $8.80, which I calculate at $17,600.

Mr Gouldson —That is correct.

Senator ROBERT RAY —So over two years Mrs Bailey has spent $42,592 on desktop flags—

Senator FAULKNER —Of the Commonwealth's money.

Senator ROBERT RAY —of the taxpayers' money. Is that right?

Mr Skrzypek —Yes.

Senator ROBERT RAY —In other words, the calculation—I have a wonderful graph here—is that she has actually spent 61 per cent of the total expenditure on flags herself, out of 49 members. Which brings me back to the matter of eligibility. Mrs Bailey was seen at the Diamond Creek fair on 20 March 1999 handing these out to individuals as they wandered by. I cannot see how this fits into the guidelines. I do not ask you to verify that—you would not know if she handed them out there. Do you bring these particular guidelines to the attention of members and senators very often?

Mr Skrzypek —We do publish them, as you see from the quote I read out from the latest version of the senators and members entitlements guidelines, and we do from time to time discuss them over the telephone with individual senators and members who may have queries about them.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Did you ever read the brilliant exposition given in the House of Representatives Hansard of 12 December 1996 by the member for McEwen who, in a very brilliant way, gives a precis of the entitlements for the use of Australian flags at taxpayer expense?

Mr Skrzypek —No, Senator.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Well, I hope you can read it, because it shows that she knew the regulations absolutely, in the bottom two paragraphs on page 2 of her speech. I do commend it to you to show that she totally knows the regulations. So we had several members of parliament ordering these flags, and we had one ordering 4,840 flags over two years, costing $42,592. What accountability is there for that? Do they then have to forward to the department who they have given the flags to?

Mr Skrzypek —No.

Senator ROBERT RAY —They don't? Would you be entitled to ask, when there is an extraordinary amount of taxpayer money involved, or would you be capable of asking, the member or senator what they eventually did with the flags?

Mr Winder —I am not sure about the word `capable', Senator. I am sure we could.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes, it may have been a bad use of words. You see, whenever you get uncapped entitlements, Mr Winder, I always worry about it. In this case, I am not entitled to worry about it, because they are such specific requirements as to who you can give them to and who you cannot. But no[hyphen]one can ever tell me that someone got 4,800[hyphen]odd requests over two years for flags, costing $42,000 of taxpayers' money. Doesn't that trigger someone in the department to go back and check?

Mr Winder —It is certainly something that we have noticed from this inquiry, yes.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I think there was a case of someone, either by accident or otherwise, who ordered 30 staplers. Didn't you go back and check that?

Mr Winder —I'm not sure what you are referring to, Senator.

Senator ROBERT RAY —It may have been done at a state based area, but I am sure that there was at some stage the Great Stapler Hunt, because someone thought, `It does look passing strange: what would an office need with 30 staplers?' Of course you are entitled to ask. I am wondering why no[hyphen]one has looked at the ordering of 4,840 flags at $8.80 each. The only person who gets near it is Mr Broadbent, who gets 1,276 at $11,229. There are a whole range of others who maybe are not patriotic enough. Senator Conroy and I come out at nought over the three years. It could be that people are too afraid to approach our office; I do not know. Certainly, Mr Chairman, I do not hand them out at the local show and you do not hand them out at the local show—you never would. I am also certain that Senator Murray would not be handing them out at the local show. Or should I get the Western Australian figures out, Senator Murray?

ACTING CHAIR (Senator Murray) —I definitely do not.

Senator ROBERT RAY —But the basic question is: wouldn't that figure trigger something in the department to think `We'd better check this out to make sure the entitlements are being observed'?

Mr Winder —Certainly, Senator, it is a matter we should look into.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I did not ask for the figures in other states; I was only concerned about my home state. I do not know if it was replicated anywhere, but I think it should be looked at.

ACTING CHAIR —As the chair I will ask if you can just report back to the committee on other states to see if there is anyone with an equivalent aberrational number.

Senator BROWNHILL —I must say that in America it is fantastic to see their flags flying as much as they do.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Isn't it! This comes from a user-pays government. You want to hand out freebies, you pay for it. Do not stick the taxpayer with it, for heaven's sake. You would agree with that. I know you would. You often express that view.

ACTING CHAIR —Let us return to the questioning, Senator Ray.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I asked last time about joint parliamentary ministerial offices—with which there is nothing intrinsically wrong, I hasten to add. Sometimes I think they are a good idea. Minister, your own office is shown here as being in Northbridge. You may or may not want me to advertise the address, but it is in Northbridge. Your annual rent is $27,000 a year. It makes you pretty stingy, doesn't it?

Senator Ellison —It is quite a reasonable rent.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes, isn't it. It is very good. Congratulations.

ACTING CHAIR —It is a good suburb.

Senator ROBERT RAY —It is even cheaper than my own, which is very cheap. What about the rent for Mr Hockey at $83,850? Would that be on the partial high side?

Mr Skrzypek —I am sorry, Senator; was that addressed to me?

Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes, it is for the minister to direct whom he would like to answer it.

Mr Skrzypek —Senator, rents, as you will know, vary across the country depending on location. What is an acceptable rent in one locality need not be an acceptable rent in another locality.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I think we understand that. But, Minister, you don't think $83,000 may be just a tad over the odds?

Senator Ellison —I think you are looking at different places. You cannot compare one capital city necessarily with another.

Senator CONROY —We are not talking about the CBD.

Senator Ellison —I am not an expert on locations and their rents. I know a bit about my own town from local knowledge, but beyond that—

Senator ROBERT RAY —You are both just out of town, which I think is an excellent idea. You are in Northbridge. He is in North Sydney, and I am down in St Kilda Road. Your rent is $27,000; I think mine is $31,000 or $33,000. This one is $83,000: isn't that just a little on the high side? You must have some say in the approval of these things?

Mr Skrzypek —If I could just add something about the question that will help clarify the issue, with every accommodation proposal from a senator or a member, part of our advice to the minister is that we have sought and received a valuation from, typically, the Australian Valuation Office, that the rent being sought by the prospective landlord is within the acceptable range for the particular locality.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes, it is three times the cost of that of the minister at the table.

Senator CONROY —And not in the CBD.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Not in the CBD, but neither is the minister; he is up at Northbridge.

Senator Ellison —I think that you have to remember in relation to my premises and what might make it unusual is that it is an old house and that there was an extension portable put out the back so that it could double as a ministerial and electorate office. If you had to rent that as a whole, the rental could well be a lot more. If I had gone out to look at a ministerial and electorate office combined, it could well have been a whole lot more, but basically, because the portable is out the back, it saved some money. You cannot necessarily apply that principle to every other site, so I am really not sure that we are comparing apples with apples here.

Senator ROBERT RAY —So is that where the $50,000 for fit[hyphen]out refurbishment comes from in your figures, Minister?

Senator Ellison —Yes, the portable.

Senator ROBERT RAY —And in Mr Hockey's case, the $119,260: what was that spent on? I would have thought that if you were paying $83,000 rent it might be in prime condition and not needing refurbishment.

Senator Ellison —I will have to take that on notice. Perhaps—

Mr Skrzypek —No, I would prefer to take that on notice, Senator. I do not have that detail.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Take it on notice. I would also like to know whether the money had started to be spent before his ministerial duties were defined, which took three to four months. Where was Mr Hockey previously? At that address?

Mr Skrzypek —No, Senator, but I do not have the details here with me.

Senator ROBERT RAY —You have fit[hyphen]out and refurbishment to look into. You might also take moving costs into account so that we can have a full picture of Mr Hockey's activities there.

Senator FAULKNER —I just wanted to ask a question, Minister, in relation to the carryover of the postal entitlement. As I understand it, a member or senator can carry over 20 per cent. Is that correct?

Senator Ellison —Yes.

Senator FAULKNER —So it is 20 per cent of your postal entitlement until the next year. Is that correct?

Senator Ellison —Yes.

Mr Gavin —My understanding is that you can carry over the unspent portion up to the $22,000. The 20 per cent carryover applies to the charter entitlement.

Senator Ellison —If you can just hold it there, I think we might have some confusion. We will just sort this out.

Mr Gavin —What I said is correct, Senator.

Senator FAULKNER —So for the charter entitlement it is a 20 per cent carryover.

Mr Gavin —For three months.

Senator FAULKNER —And for postal allowance it is basically the lot?

Mr Gavin —Up to the maximum for a given year, but in fact if you were into the second year you would only be able to carry over $22,000.

Senator FAULKNER —I just want to understand this. I assume that if you carry this over and you lose your seat, because it is a carryover, there would be no obligation on the individual member or senator to pay that money back in that circumstance?

Mr Gavin —If it is a carryover, he or she would not have spent it, of course.

Senator FAULKNER —Yes.

Mr Gavin —The Parliamentary Entitlements Act in fact says that you can spend an entitlement at any time in the financial year. That means that you could spend your $22,000 on 1 July and lose your seat on the 2nd—I mean in an extreme situation.

Senator FAULKNER —But technically you could do it?

Mr Gavin —Yes, and there would be no debt to the Commonwealth that needed recovery.

Senator FAULKNER —Fair enough.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I just want to put a supplementary question to Mr Skrzypek. When he is getting those figures, could he give us a cost per square metre for Mr Hockey's North Sydney office? I think it would probably be too hard for you to find an average round there and let me know, but at least in terms of his office it would be very useful to know. Minister, I did ask what the cost was for advertising vacant electorate officer positions in 1997[hyphen]98 and I am most surprised to hear the answer is $104,810. It seems an extraordinarily large amount, although that figure of $100,000 does not even seem to be electoral cycle based. Have you any idea why it is that high?

Mr Skrzypek —Are you talking about officer positions or office accommodation?

Senator ROBERT RAY —Advertising vacant electorate officer positions in the 1997[hyphen]98 financial year and the answer came back—signed off by Senator Ellison—$104,810, which seems extraordinarily large.

Senator Ellison —I saw that today for the first time. I think we will have to take it on notice unless we can give you further detail now. I am interested too.

Senator ROBERT RAY —In the good old days, Senator Ellison, you would say, `Here is a potential saving, hide it from Finance,' and not offer it up. But the trouble is that you are now in the wrong department. Dr Boxall has sighted that and he has put a big red pen mark around it. It just seems to be a large amount of money, given that in other areas we are probably short of money in this whole MPS area. I must say I have never spent a cent on this in 18 or 19 years and I am just wondering why it is so high.

Senator Ellison —Some people do and some people don't.

Senator ROBERT RAY —The answer may take into account ministerial and shadow ministerial personal staff. I asked about electorate officers, in which case you are getting a bit nearer the target zone—they are much more likely to be advertising. Anyway, you might like to have a glance at that at some stage.

Mr Winder —We will.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Thank you for answering my question on the now notorious second media officers. You can confirm of course, Minister, that there is a second media officer in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales as per usual?

Senator Ellison —Yes, that is right.

Senator ROBERT RAY —And that all six of the second ones are state based rather than Canberra based?

Senator Ellison —I will just check that with an officer. Yes, that is right.

Senator ROBERT RAY —And you can confirm that—

Mr Gavin —I apologise, I may have misled the minister. Did you say that all the second ones are in fact Canberra based? Is that what you said?

Senator ROBERT RAY —No, state based.

Mr Gavin —Yes, they are state based.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Phew! Something almost went wrong.

Senator FAULKNER —You're just relaxed that you were not really the minister!

Senator ROBERT RAY —And in each case the additional personal secretary goes to the same minister who gets a second media officer. Is that still correct?

Mr Gavin —That is correct.

Senator ROBERT RAY —And they are still spread between Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales?

Mr Gavin —That is correct.

Senator ROBERT RAY —And they are all state based rather than Canberra based?

Mr Gavin —That is correct.

Senator ROBERT RAY —So we have 12 on the payroll but, Minister, there is no National Media Liaison Service? It is the best impersonation I have seen in a long while.

Senator Ellison —They are just state based and around the country—

Senator ROBERT RAY —Just state based? Do you know what the mathematical odds are of granting extra staff and actually having them as second media officers in every state and then a second personal secretary in each state, each to the same minister? It is just a question of aNiMaLS being terrible but this is hunky[hyphen]dory.

Could I raise a travel allowance question, although I must say I have not found this a problem. It is quite proper for the department to pursue these things with full scrutiny, so there is no concern about that. But some colleagues have complained about getting a telephone call to say, `Your committee meeting finished at 4.20. You could have got the last plane out that night.' They have said, `First of all, we didn't know it was going to finish then. Secondly, when a committee finishes, that doesn't mean the work finishes,' because they might have to go back and write up their notes and all the rest of it and cannot get the last plane out. They seem to think that they are being pushed just a little too hard on this, that it is not within the normal traditional interpretation. Would you like to respond to that?

Mr Gavin —The interpretation flows from Remuneration Tribunal determination No. 8 of 1998, which deals with travelling allowance, as you know. The particular wording is that the travelling allowance is payable for an overnight stay occasioned primarily by various circumstances, including committee hearings. Our view is that the provision needs to be applied reasonably and not automatically. We understand that before we took over the function there was a certain automaticity, essentially that there was eligibility established merely by the fact of the hearing on a given day for someone to be able to stay on overnight that night. All we have sought to do is apply the rule reasonably so that if the person, having finished their work with the committee, could reasonably be expected to catch a plane then in fact their eligibility for the travelling allowance would not exist. But I stress the word `reasonably'.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I think you are very reasonable in terms of people coming in the night before because of the fog problem in Canberra. Even if there is a midday meeting, you still seem to think it is still okay for them to come in the night before because this place is often fogged out till 1 o'clock. So that is a definition of reasonable; it is just trying to give them some working guidelines. You tell an MP that something is reasonable and they will not understand what you mean. As I say, it has not happened to me. I have just checked with Senator Conroy and it has never happened to him. The one thing that has me tricked is that I have hardly ever met a parliamentarian that thinks staying overnight in Canberra is worth 140 bucks; they would all rather get home.

Mr Gavin —Of course, what your question relates to is committee hearings perhaps not in Canberra.

Senator Ellison —Elsewhere.

Senator ROBERT RAY —No, I was basically talking about Canberra. But that equally applies of course to committee hearings elsewhere, for which I think there is less of a case. I think you are entitled to pursue those a little more because (a) it is a lot more travel allowance and (b) it is not as part of the usual routine. They may want to go and do other things in the town—political and other things. Here in Canberra I really have not struck the people that are saying, `Let's keep the committee going another 10 minutes so we can stay overnight here.'

Senator Ellison —If there are some examples, bring them to our attention and we will see what we can do.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Minister, this one is not asked with aggression. It is just that queries were raised and I thought we might as well put them on the table now and have them out. It is now a question of what is reasonable and what is not; it is not easy for interpretation by members, that is all.

Could I now go to Mr McGauran. I am sorry that I have not got any other files with me. As for this missing page, am I right that these are six in addition to the 14 you listed? Have I got that wrong? Were there 14 repayments listed in what you published and these are an additional six or did you only publish eight and these six are here?

ACTING CHAIR —How did you calculate six?

Mr Winder —It looks like nine.

Mr Hamburger —This is the whole page for the repayments of travel allowance.

Senator ROBERT RAY —This is the whole repayments page.

Senator BROWNHILL —Is this the whole repayments page?

Senator ROBERT RAY —It looks a bit like it, except some have got minuses and some have not.

Mr Hamburger —It is the whole detailed travel allowance page. All the travel allowance payments in the published document were on one page for each member. This page was missing from the document that was tabled.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I am sorry, but that is not helping us. I take you to the figures for 9 May 1996. Is that an additional payment—one that was not claimed at the time? It does not have a minus before it, for instance.

Mr Hamburger —It was paid for Canberra and it should have been paid for Melbourne, so there is a recovery of $145 not claimed there.

Senator ROBERT RAY —These are adjustments at the end.

Mr Hamburger —Yes.

Senator ROBERT RAY —That makes it a bit more understandable. So there are basically five Melbourne ones within three months at $320 a head. I can imagine you were distressed that, of all the pages that could fall out of the thing, this was it.

Mr Winder —Very.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I know it was not deliberate, so I will not take it any further. We were critical of you for not getting the six monthly reports ready and into action. It seems that the timetable is going a bit better this time. When do you anticipate tabling the 1 July to 31 December figures from last year? I notice that you have got a cut-off for responses that you have extended to 17 May. On which day, from your normal experience, would you expect to have that in the parliament? Within six months?

Mr Winder —We had hoped that we would be able to do that by the end of May, but I think now, with that extension of time, we will not. We are hoping to table that before the end of this financial year.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Are you going to do a comparative set of figures of how many challenges you got the first time, second time and third time around? It seems to me that they are going to drop off as the systems get into place. A lot more members are just going to sign it off this time and send it back, having checked the records. That is my anticipation.

Mr Winder —We will be looking at that. I think our systems improve, too, as we do it.

Senator ROBERT RAY —It was a very clear set of figures to read this time, I must say.

Mr Winder —With our changed systems, we would also be hoping to table the following one at a much earlier date—by September, hopefully.

Senator ROBERT RAY —That is all I have on the tabling of those.

ACTING CHAIR —Are there further questions on the travel allowance area before we move on?

Senator BROWNHILL —On the driving of a car into Canberra on a Sunday, there is still only one place to report in—the Ministerial Wing. Is that correct?

Senator ROBERT RAY —They are changing this.

Senator BROWNHILL —Recently, I came in and no[hyphen]one was in the Ministerial Wing. When I went around to see them the next day, I was told that I should have gone down to the car park in the Ministerial Wing. It might be easy for ministers, but I cannot see why other people who drive in here on a Sunday night cannot have a second reporting place at the Senate side or on the House of Representatives side rather than its always being in the one book at the ministerial side. Wouldn't it be just as easy for us plebs—the senators or House of Representatives people who are not in the Ministerial Wing—to do it somewhere else?

Mr Gavin —The minister has agreed in principle to a much more flexible set of arrangements but retaining the features of the current one which, because of the requirements of the determination, requires a signature on a document to validate your arrival and departure. We are hopeful that those new arrangements will be promulgated quite soon. For instance, it would include being able to hop into the Shell garage on the way in and take away a receipt that you have signed.

Senator BROWNHILL —Do you mean buy some fuel or something?

Mr Gavin —I imagine that, at the end of the trip, you would be able to—

Senator ROBERT RAY —Get your groceries for the weekend, like you normally do.

Senator Ellison —You must have a date, a time and a signature—the three are linked together so that you know that that happened, and it was done by that person in Canberra.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Why don't you put in a time clock, and give them all a card and a badge!

ACTING CHAIR —If there are no further questions on travel allowance, I have one on charter allowance. At the last estimates hearing, I put a question on notice which was responded to. To paraphrase—because I have not got it before me—I asked whether it was the intention of the department to query members and senators as to whether they wished to review their past records to determine whether they should make a repayment similar to that which you made, Minister. The response I got from the department was no. Unless you have something to say in addition to that, I would like to follow up with a question on that.

Mr Winder —That is correct.

ACTING CHAIR —As minister, have you received inquiries from either members or senators, either in writing or personally, as to whether they should examine their records and whether they should consider repayment of their charter allowance in a similar way to you?

Mr Winder —I have just asked my colleagues, but my recollection is that we have not.

ACTING CHAIR —There was no formal approach to either the department or the minister?

Mr Winder —I cannot speak for the minister, but from the department's point of view I do not believe there has been any formal approach.

ACTING CHAIR —In writing or in person?

Mr Winder —In writing or in person.

ACTING CHAIR —And for you, Minister, personally?

Senator Ellison —None.

Senator ROBERT RAY —So we can presume from that that no other Western Australians have been misusing their charters.

Senator Ellison —There was a statement by the Minister for Finance and Administration that he had advice that there was no debt owing. You will recall that he made an announcement—and I think Dr Boxall has the announcement—on 14 February. He stated that independent advice had been obtained—

Senator ROBERT RAY —I do not think I was asking a question along those lines, but I am happy to hear the answer.

Senator Ellison —That could account for why no[hyphen]one has come forward—there has been a public announcement that no debt is owing.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Was that done on the basis of legal advice?

Senator Ellison —Yes.

Senator MURRAY —Minister, you would be aware that there was some media commentary at the time of your repayment and a belief that your example should have been followed by others because there was a suspicion that others may have fallen into the same problem that you did; namely, that the entitlement provisions were breached—unwittingly, inadvertently or perhaps knowingly. Is it your view as minister responsible that yours was an isolated instance? Is it the view of the government that, if your view is not that it was an isolated instance, you should simply not pursue it any further? If so, why?

Senator Ellison —The Minister for Finance and Administration has said, as a result of legal advice, that there is not a debt owing to the Commonwealth in relation to these passengers and that, therefore, recovery is inappropriate. I think those were the words he used.

Mr Winder —The legal advice we received was that there is no obligation on the department to review all charter claims simply because there may be general allegations or views that there had been something of that nature. If there are specific allegations about instances outside the entitlement then we will pursue them.

Senator MURRAY —Was that legal advice from the Government Solicitor?

Mr Winder —We had two sets of legal advice: one from the Australian Government Solicitor and one from a private legal firm.

Senator MURRAY —But we all know, and you know as a department, that this is a sensitive area and one subject to considerable media scrutiny. Don't you think it might have been prudent, regardless of the legal advice, to write to members and senators to ask them, of their own volition, to review their own records and determine, on the basis that the minister did, whether they felt there might be any areas of concern or misunderstanding and that they might feel obliged to make repayment, as the minister did?

Mr Winder —I think our view would be that the Minister for Finance and Administration's press release was the end of the matter. He resolved the situation.

Senator MURRAY —Don't you as a department think it is unlikely that the minister would be an isolated case?

Mr Winder —I do not have a view on that.

Senator ROBERT RAY —We do.

Senator MURRAY —Do you have a view, Minister?

Senator Ellison —The only way that the government can know of these things is if someone brings a complaint or evidence to the government. That is what we rely on. There has been some press comment, but nobody has been forthcoming to the government to say, `Here is a list of people who have done this, that or the other,' and individuals have not come forward. By individuals I mean members of parliament. I would put that down to the fact that the Minister for Finance and Administration has made this statement.

Senator MURRAY —Minister, don't you feel that there is a danger that payback can continue to occur over time and allegations which might be untrue might be made against other senators or members over time, going back some years and maybe some years into the future, unless the request was made to senators and members? We have, as you know, one case right now where the finger was pointed in Western Australia. I do not know whether it is right or wrong, but surely it would be better for the government to clear it up once and for all.

Senator Ellison —I think the position has been that it is a decision for each member of parliament to come to as they see it.

Senator MURRAY —But they have not been advised as to how to come to that decision. They were not written to about it. That is my point.

Senator Ellison —No, they were not written to, but certainly there was publicity surrounding the statement by the Minister for Finance and Administration. He says:

On the basis of the advice received, the Government has concluded that further payments from Senators and Members in relation to additional passengers carried on air charters would not be appropriate in the following circumstances:

He has outlined the circumstances where that occurs and he stated that the government has had independent legal advice. Mr Winder has mentioned that that advice was from both the Attorney-General's Department and a private law form. I did not obtain that legal advice; the Minister for Finance and Administration did.

Senator MURRAY —Minister, I cannot accept that you are likely to be a sole instance. I would presume that there would be parliamentarians who unknowingly, inadvertently and perhaps even occasionally knowingly did not follow the provisions of the charter entitlement. I am concerned that that finger pointing will go on when people indulge in payback unless it has been cleared up. To my mind, in the same way as you send out the documents for us to check and verify to you that there is no problem, it may well be worth while for the government to consider a letter of that advice. If senators and members choose not to respond appropriately to you, you can do no more, as I see it. I am just surprised that you would leave it as it is, knowing those records have not been reviewed.

Senator Ellison —It is a question of whether you leave it at the statement as made by the minister for finance or you communicate that to each member and senator. If that is a suggestion you are making, we will take it on board and consider it.

Senator MURRAY —It is just that following the last estimates there was adverse media comment and a member of parliament in Western Australia did have the finger pointed. Those kinds of things are difficult to deal with unless the government has taken appropriate action.
There is only so much you can do. Senators and members have to respond as they see fit. But I am just surprised that people were not asked to review their situation and make recompense if they felt that they had breached the guidelines.

Senator Ellison —We could take that on board and give it consideration.

Senator ROBERT RAY —You have got the minister for finance ruling on a fellow minister in the portfolio on the basis of legal advice. Isn't this one of the few instances, Minister, where you should table that legal advice? I know there are many instances where you should not or could not, but surely in those circumstances there should be no impediment to tabling that advice so that all senators and members can look at that advice, measure it against their own track record in the past and make their individual decisions.

Senator Ellison —The minister for finance gave quite a detailed statement on 14 February. He outlined in that statement the sum total of the advice that the government had received in relation to both the Attorney-General's Department and the private law firm he mentioned. I have not seen that advice myself. I have only been advised of it, because the minister for finance was dealing with this matter. It was quite appropriate that he deal with it and not me.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I think it was appropriate that he dealt with it. You notice we have not challenged his ruling or followed through with any questions on that. I am just wondering whether this may be a case for the government to table that advice so that everyone can know that that advice applies to members and senators. It may not apply to you; I am not talking about you now. It is a classic case where you should table that advice, whereas in the case of other legal advice obviously you refrain from doing so because of other consequences.

Senator Ellison —It is not normal for the government to table legal advice—

Senator ROBERT RAY —They do it all the time when it suits their circumstances. This neither suits nor opposes your circumstances, but I would have thought it would very much strengthen Mr Fahey's rulings on these matters to see what advice he was acting upon.

Senator ELLISON —Again, I will take your comments on board, Senator Ray, as we will do Senator Murray's.

Senator ROBERT RAY —You did say something in answer to Senator Murray that I was a bit puzzled about. You said that where there are problems and where complaints are made they are always investigated. Is that right?

Senator Ellison —That is usually the course of action. I think Mr Winder mentioned that.

Mr Winder —If we receive allegations or issues that are raised in the media that we believe require a response from a senator or member, through the minister we would seek a comment from that senator or member.

Senator ROBERT RAY —I appreciate that is the departmental attitude. I understand, Minister, that the approach of the government when it receives complaints is to have them investigated or passed on. Is that general policy in the government?

Senator Ellison —Yes, to have it referred to the department, which looks into it.

Senator ROBERT RAY —And you do not know of any instances where complaints have been made, not to you but in government, about the behaviour of MPs and use of entitlements and those complaints have merely been ignored and not referred to the Federal Police?

Senator Ellison —You are talking about something different there when you say referral to the Federal Police.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Well, absolutely nothing done about it.

Senator Ellison —Perhaps Mr Winder could answer that.

Mr Winder —The department follows up all of these matters. We receive comments from senators and members and we deal with them as appropriate.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Mr Winder, I agree with that answer. That was not my question. I am going to a broader question of government policy. I am not talking about you or your minister. I will make it very specific so that Senator Ellison understands. When complaints are made about misuse of entitlements to the Prime Minister's office, are they always passed on to you and your department or are they just sat on, hoping they will go away? I am just trying to see whether your principles apply down the road here.

Senator Ellison —I cannot speak for the Prime Minister's office, but my expectation would be that they would be passed on to the relevant section which, if it was entitlements, would be the MPS section.

Senator FAULKNER —I noted that, some time ago, the member for Deakin, Mr Barresi, accused the Labor Party of using his official Australia Post account for its own campaign mail and direct mail. He made a speech in the House of Representatives outlining his concerns to that effect. He claimed to have evidence that the ALP had used his account deliberately. Minister, I do not know whether you are aware of this particular issue, but I assume the department would be well aware of it. Is that correct, Mr Winder?

Mr Winder —Yes, we are aware of it.

Senator FAULKNER —I want to get this clear. As I understand it, Australia Post has admitted a mistake on their behalf in relation to this particular issue.

Mr Winder —I will ask Mr Skrzypek to answer that question.

Mr Skrzypek —I am certainly aware of the issue. I am aware that there have been discussions between Mr Barresi and Australia Post, but the matter has been one between Mr Barresi and Australia Post and the department has not been privy to those discussions.

Senator ROBERT RAY —So you have not had a discussion with Australia Post over this matter?

Mr Skrzypek —We have sought our own consultation with Australia Post and they have told us that a clerical error was involved.

Senator FAULKNER —A clerical error?

Mr Skrzypek —Yes.

Senator FAULKNER —So, basically, what Mr Barresi said in the House of Representatives was a load of old codswallop, was it not, Minister—an absolute load of malicious, vindictive tripe?

Senator Ellison —I do not have before me what he said, so I cannot comment.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Basically he said that the Labor Party had used his own account to send its direct mail—which is false. He said that, because the Labor candidate happened to be a union official, in some way the postal workers helped him, even though they have never been particular friends. All this was explained to him by Australia Post, yet he still made the speech and still put the claims out in the paper; and it was nothing to do with the Labor Party. We had paid for all our direct mail. We did not use the taxpayers' money to send it out. It was all paid for by the campaign organisation. He knew all this before he made the accusations.

Senator FAULKNER —These clerical errors with Australia Post are not uncommon. I can recall it happening in a number of campaigns, to the massive disadvantage of one former Victorian Labor member of the House of Representatives, but he did not behave in this abominable way.

Senator Ellison —I can only say that you have made your point. It is a matter which obviously involves Australia Post, which is not my area of responsibility. There is perhaps another place where you can raise your concern.

Senator ROBERT RAY —That was not your responsibility, but you are responsible for any misuse of the money you provide for postage. In that circumstance, it would then become your responsibility. The fact that there has been no misuse basically means that it is not your responsibility. You are right—ipso facto.

Senator Ellison —That is a conclusion that you have drawn.

Senator ROBERT RAY —What we are asking, Minister, is whether inquiries were made and the same conclusions were drawn—that it was just an error by the post office and not a conspiracy by the Labor Party—and to have that put on the record and then move on.

Senator FAULKNER —In other words, it was a clerical error by Australia Post. That is understood—it happens.

Senator Ellison —We have said it was a clerical error.

Senator FAULKNER —I know that. You have said it, but Mr Barresi was in the parliament making outrageous and false allegations about the Labor Party and members of the Labor Party.

Senator Ellison —Mr Chairman, I think we have covered the point.

Senator ROBERT RAY —We have had equal time on him anyway.

CHAIR —Are there any further questions on program 7?

Senator MURRAY —I would just like to make a remark. Minister, there was some concern that, when the Jetset set[hyphen]up was introduced, it would not provide as good a service as we had formerly enjoyed. Speaking for myself, I would like to indicate that it is a very good service and it has worked out well. As somebody who travels a great deal, I have appreciated the level of service that they give us, and I would like to put that on the record.

Mr Winder —Thank you, Senator.

Senator Ellison —That has been the anecdotal evidence that I myself have had in relation to Jetset.

Senator ROBERT RAY —That it is going all right?

Senator Ellison —Yes.

CHAIR —I would agree. I think it has been a good service. That completes program 7. We will now go backwards to program 3—Resource management framework.

[5.15 p.m.]