SENATOR TEAGUE -My question relates to page 27 of the explanatory notes. There are three references to the recent election, one of which-$513,000-is attributed to an increase in termination payments attributable to the Federal election. That is self-explanatory but the other two are not clearly explained . Is it not against the guidelines of the Department for overtime or travel to be in the terms set out in this section-associated with the election or attributable mainly to the recent election? Are these two items not against the Act which covers your Dept?

MR LLEONART -I believe the situation is that travel is associated with both parliamentary and electorate activities. We do not distinguish very finely between the purposes of that travel.

SENATOR TEAGUE -You do not distinguish at all?

MR LLEONART -No, travel requisitions are made and payments are met. It is regarded as the responsibility of individual members and senators to determine the purpose for which travel is undertaken. We do not presume to be the policeman of that situation.

SENATOR TEAGUE -With regard to the overtime item of $534,000 and travel costs of $750,000, could I put a question on notice for a party by party breakdown of spending on those two matters? I am not asking for individual members and senators but for a party by party breakdown.

MR LLEONART -Yes, we could but it may take a small while.

SENATOR TEAGUE -My second question concerns 18 staff positions associated with office-holders. What are the 18 positions? Let us hope that half of them are with the Opposition.

MR LLEONART -The term `office-holders' would encompass that gamut of people including Ministers, parliamentary secretaries and Opposition leaders, including Democrats. The figure of 18 is an estimate. It is not final in the sense that the Prime Minister has yet to determine the quantum of staff for the Opposition leaders.

SENATOR TEAGUE -Could I put a question on notice as to what the final number and the composition of those extra staff positions will be.

MR LLEONART -I make the point that we are aware of the staffing for the parliamentary secretaries. We are not aware of the final decision of the Prime Minister in respect of Opposition staff numbers but we should be able to give you that within a few days.

SENATOR TEAGUE -Finally, with regard to visits abroad by Ministers, what amount has been spent on overseas travel by each Minister since 1 July last year?

MR LLEONART -We can get that.

SENATOR MICHAEL BAUME -The figures that Senator Teague has asked about-the overtime payments for staff and the increased travel costs-do not relate to Ministers or ministerial staff?

MR LLEONART -They are across the whole range of senators and members, plus Ministers of course.

SENATOR MICHAEL BAUME -It does include Ministers?

MR LLEONART -It includes all staff employed under Members of Parliament (Staff ) Act. That is electorate staff and personal staff.

SENATOR MICHAEL BAUME -Both Opposition and Government but it would not include staff of Ministers because they are not employed under that Act.

MR LLEONART -They are employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act.

CHAIRMAN -As are the staff of the shadow Leaders.

SENATOR MICHAEL BAUME -Of course, it is only members of the National Media Liaison Service who may be on secondment who are not employed under that Act. I remember that we came across a division last time between the different sorts of people who were nonetheless in Ministers' offices but who were necessarily under that Act.

MR LLEONART -They are all employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act , except that there are some departmental staff seconded who would not be covered.

SENATOR MICHAEL BAUME -And members of the National Media Liaison Service?

MR LLEONART -No, members of the National Media Liaison Service are employed under that Act.

SENATOR MICHAEL BAUME -I thought they were employed by the Department of Administrative Services as--

MR LLEONART -But their salaries are paid under this program.

SENATOR MICHAEL BAUME -I could have said that they were a separate animal but I resisted the temptation.

MR LLEONART -They are ministerial staff for the purposes of the Act.

SENATOR MICHAEL BAUME -So this would include ministerial as well as backbench on both sides?

MR LLEONART -Yes.

SENATOR PARER -I have some questions that were asked at the previous session of the Estimates Committee hearings, but I am looking for an update, so they should not be too difficult for you. You may not have the answers straight away, but I am fairly confident you will be able to give them to me reasonably quickly. Could you give me the numbers employed on ministerial staff, including a breakdown of those positions? Could you also list the number of staff employed by shadow ministers and give their positions? Could comparative statistics be given for the numbers and positions at the end of 1982-now as compared to 1982? Could you provide information on the numbers of consultants attached to Ministers' offices and the range of payments made for those consultants? I think that there is a recent booklet that lists those consultants, if my recollection is correct. Could comparative information be supplied for the end of 1982 regarding the number of ministerial consultants? Could you also supply the following information: the numbers of staff on the National Madia Liaison Service, their location and names? I think that information would be an update, because I do recall that coming out on the last occasion that we met. Could you tell me about any other staff employed under the ministerial staff Act not listed in the questions I have asked? Could comparative statistics for the numbers employed by the old Government Information Unit at the end of 1982 be provided?

MR LLEONART -We can take those matters on notice and provide the information, Senator.

SENATOR PARER -I have one more question, which goes to the heart of the Minister at the table since it relates to parliamentary office accommodation. It is worth referring to the Estimates Committee of 1989 when the then Minister at the table, Senator Ray, suggested that the best way to come to a conclusion on this matter and the best way to speed it up was to put a blow torch to the office of the Estimates Committee, which he himself claimed he did in 1981. Considerable complaints have been made to us from our own people within the Liberal Party in respect of delays incurred in providing office accommodation, and I think that the Minister is probably aware of this, too. A number in particular stand out and I would like to get your reaction to those delays and the reasons for them. You will appreciate that there are some members who wish to locate their offices in their electorates in locations quite distant from where the previous member may have held that office.

MR LLEONART -The single difficulty is the scale of the operation. We have at the moment 50 relocations for senators and members. We are doing the very best we can in conjunction with our colleagues from Australian Property Services, but inevitably we cannot accommodate everybody as soon as they would wish. All I could say is that we are doing everything we possibly can.

SENATOR TEAGUE -I have a question that arose on the Derryn Hinch show on 10 November last year when a senator gave an answer that part of a $9,000 allowance for postage was made available by him in respect of 100 stamps for a union. Is that allowable under the Department's guidelines for postage allowance for members and senators?

SENATOR BOLKUS -I think that it is also fair to say in response to that that there was a subsequent raising of the matter in the Senate, when the senator concerned indicated that he had paid for those stamps himself.

MR LLEONART -That is my recollection of the situation. After the Hinch show and the Adelaide newspaper stories, the senator concerned made the point that he had paid for those items himself.

SENATOR TEAGUE -I am aware of the discussion in the Senate, but I was leading up to the following question: In the light of the discussion in the Senate has the Department seen need to make any further inquiry?

MR LLEONART -We did make some inquiries at the time, we were told that fact and that is what we accepted. The rules promulgated in the circulars and guidelines are that the allowances are for parliamentary and electorate purposes. Again, it is up to members and senators to observe those rules rather than for us to be snooping into every individual situation.

SENATOR TEAGUE -So from the Department's point of view that is the end of the matter.

MR LLEONART -The rules are that it is not possible to use the entitlement for stamps-there are facilities available in Parliament House, as you know, but outside the House the postage entitlement is for use by the member.

SENATOR TEAGUE -So from the Department's point of view that is the end of the matter?

MR LLEONART -In such situations obviously we report to our ministerial masters and it becomes a political matter as to any remedies that may be required.

SENATOR TEAGUE -Was this matter referred to your political masters?

MR LLEONART -Well, by way of briefing notes to call it to attention, yes.

SENATOR TEAGUE -Minister, was any inquiry made by a member of the Government?

SENATOR BOLKUS -Mr Chairman, it is hard for me to have direct knowledge of this, but it is my understanding that after the matter was raised in the Senate and the explanation was given, it may not have been taken any further.