Mr McMULLAN (3:24 PM) —Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. It relates to the budget papers concerning employment in the parliament. In particular, the departmental budget statements at page 21, with regard to the House of Reps, indicate that the average staffing level in the House will fall by 22 because of a transfer to the Department of Parliamentary Services. Although you are not responsible for this, just for background the Senate papers say something similar relating to a reduction in staff of 52 for the same reason. I was surprised to see this and ask if you could explain to the House why the Department of Parliamentary Services budget statement indicates that, notwithstanding that transfer of 74 staff to them, their average staffing level will fall by 19—which seems to be a loss of 93 other jobs somewhere in the parliament. I wonder if you could explain that to me.

The SPEAKER —Let me attempt, without a briefing, to address the question raised by the member for Fraser and retain the right to come back to him in the House with more detail should I be in error. The decision to rationalise the parliamentary administration and go from five departments to three came with the understanding that there would be a reduction in staff positions; and, as I recall it, those staff positions would all be voluntary reductions. I will check the figures, but I am not surprised at the fall in the number being employed by the three departments compared with the previous circumstance. If I have your question in error, I will come back to you with a more comprehensive answer.