Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document


Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Notice given 12 February 2002

1  Senator Faulkner: To ask the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer—

(1) Has former Senator Michael Baume been appointed to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.

(2) Is the letter of appointment dated 3 October 2001, two days before the announcement of the federal election.

(3) Was there a public announcement of Mr Baume’s appointment; if not, why not.

(4) Was Mr Baume’s appointment made in accordance with the usual process for appointments to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.

(5) Was a shortlist of potential appointees to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal drawn up following the national advertisement for applicants earlier in 2001.

(6) Was Mr Baume’s name on this shortlist.

(7) If Mr Baume’s name was not on the shortlist, who recommended him for appointment.

(8) Was the Prime Minister or his office involved in the appointment process.

(9) What expertise does Mr Baume have to offer the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.

4  Senator Brown: To ask the Minister for Forestry and Conservation—With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 3641 (Senate Hansard , 20 August 2001, p. 26203): How much of the Commonwealth Government’s plantation and industry package, under the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, is planned to be or has already been spent on replacing native forests by plantations.

Senator Brown: To ask the Ministers listed below (Question Nos 6-8)—Are any of the security services in Australia able to detect, measure and trace electro-magnetic transmissions.

6 Minister representing the Prime Minister

7 Minister for Defence

8 Minister representing the Attorney-General

(Questions 6 and 7 were subsequently transferred to the Minister representing the Attorney-General)

9  Senator Brown: To ask the Minister for Defence—Following the death of Eleanore Tibble in November 2000 and the Stunden report of 3 May 2001:

(1) What actions have been taken to implement the recommendations of the Stunden report.

(2) What procedures have been put in place to ensure that in future no cadet is: judged guilty on what they deny, not provided with a right of appeal, denied natural justice, treated less favourably by virtue of their age than an adult enlisted member, and victimised and hounded to death.

(3) What changes have been made to policy and procedures to ensure that procedural practice is determined by policy and not by summary decisions and ad hoc personal persuasion.

11  Senator Brown: To ask the Minister for Family and Community Services—

(1) Is the Minister aware of the promising results of the Safecare Programs in Western Australia, aimed at reducing child abuse.

(2) What measures is the Government taking to assess or help implement Safecare in Australia generally.

17  Senator Murray: To ask the Special Minister of State—With reference to the Australian National Audit Office Performance Audit entitled Parliamentary Entitlements: 1999-2000 , which indicates that ‘as of June 2001, around 30 per cent of current and former Parliamentarians had not provided a certification of their 1999-2000 management reports’ (page 25): Are there any 1999-2000 management reports which have still not been certified; if so: (a) how many reports have not been certified; and (b) what are the names of all current and former parliamentarians who have not provided a certification of their 1999-2000 management reports.

18  Senator Bartlett: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage—

(1) Was a spearfishing competition held in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 2001.

(2) Where in the Park did the competition take place.

(3) Did the competition apply for and receive a permit from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

(4) Was the permit application publicly advertised, allowing for public comment on the proposal.

(5) Who assessed the permit application.

(6) Who signed the permit.

(7) Can details provided of the environmental assessment of the proposal that occurred, including sources of information and studies conducted.

(8) Can a detailed summary of the findings and recommendations of that assessment be provided.

(9) Was the competition proposal assessed in terms of the World Heritage obligations owed to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

(10) How does a spearfishing competition conform to those World Heritage obligations.

(11) What conditions were imposed on the permit holder.

(12) What zoning was the competition site.

(13) How many fish were killed during the competition.

(14) What species (and numbers of each species) were killed during the competition.

(15) Did any Authority staff participate in the competition; if so, who and what positions do they hold.

(16) Were any Authority staff present during the competition as monitors; if so, who.

(17) What number of killed fish were subject to scientific study.

(18) Can details be provided of: (a) all scientists involved; (b) the nature of the studies undertaken; and (c) the results, if available, of those studies.

(19) Were the dead fish used for other purposes; if so, what purposes and what numbers.

(20) How many fish were not used at all but were discarded for whatever reason.

(21) What impacts occurred as a result of the competition.

(22) What post-competition monitoring has occurred.

20  Senator Bartlett: To ask the Minister for Defence—

(1) Is research into active sonar a research priority of the department.

(2) (a) What is the decibel range of the low frequency active sonar (LFAS); and (b) in the marine environment, how far can that sound travel.

(3) Have any active sonar tests been conducted by the Australian Navy; if so, where, when, and what permits were: (a) applied for; and (b) received.

(4) If tests were conducted in the marine environment: (a) what impact assessment was undertaken; and (b) can those documents be provided.

(5) What mitigation measures were imposed.

(6) What information does the Navy have regarding the impacts of LFAS on marine mammals and other marine life.

(7) (a) What distances/levels of exposure to underwater noise are considered safe for: (i) humans, (ii) different species of whales found in Australian waters, (iii) different species of dolphins found in Australian waters, (iv) dugong, (v) different species of seals found in Australian waters, (vi) fish, with particular reference to threatened species, (vii) different species of turtles, and (viii) different species of marine birds; and (b) can details of the scientific basis for these assessments be provided.

(9) Is the Navy currently conducting any research into the impacts of LFAS on any species of marine life found in Australian waters; if so, can details be provided.

(10) Why did the Navy recently withdraw an application for a test of LFAS in the Rottnest Trench.

(11) Are any other tests planned; if so, can details be provided.

21  Senator Bartlett: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage—

(1) How many seismic tests have been conducted in Australian waters in the past 5 years.

(2) Can details of those tests be provided, including: (a) the nature of impact assessment that took place; (b) locations of all tests; (c) duration of all tests; (d) intensity of sound (including decibel level); (e) permits applied for and received by the proponent; (f) mitigation measures imposed; (g) the monitoring program in place during the testing; (h) conclusions of any monitoring; (i) the purpose of the tests; and (j) the companies undertaking the tests.

(3) What is the current state of knowledge regarding noise pollution in Australia; in particular: (a) (i) are the impacts of marine noise on different species of mammals established, and (ii) can details of studies and reports that investigate potential harm to marine life as a result of marine noise be provided; (b) is there any data on the levels of noise in Australian waters from all sources, natural and human; if so, can details be provided; and (c) is there any data on the cumulative impacts of those noise sources; if so, can details be provided.

22  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister for Family and Community Services—With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 3919, asked on 8 October 2001:

(1) What has the department discovered in its monitoring of child care award rates and the impact of increasing costs on child care services as they relate to the Special Needs Subsidy Scheme (SNSS).

(2) Has there been any further consideration of a review of the SNSS.

23  Senator Bourne: To ask the Minister for Defence—

(1) What is the daily at-sea operating cost inclusive of spares, POL contractor and in-house maintenance and crew costs of: (a) an FFG frigate; (b) an ANZAC frigate; (c) a Collins class submarine; (d) the former fast catamaran, Jervis Bay , while in service; (e) a Fremantle class patrol boat; and (f) by class, each other ship type in service with the Royal Australian Navy of displacement not less than 500 tons.

(2) What are the hourly operating costs, inclusive of spares, POL contractor and in-house maintenance and crew costs, by each type of aircraft in service with the Royal Australian Air Force.

24  Senator Bourne: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs—With reference to the questions without notice asked of the Minister by Senator Bourne in September 2001 regarding the aid money given to Nauru in exchange for processing refugees, the allegations of financial impropriety against members of the Nauru Government and Nauru’s involvement in money laundering:

(1) (a) Is the Minister aware of the role the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Financial Action Task Force is now playing in the international effort to combat terrorism through stamping out money laundering; and (b) is the Minister also aware that the organisation still considers Nauru’s efforts to stamp out the practice unsatisfactory.

(2) (a) Did the additional $10 million of aid given in September 2001 include substantial cash payments; (b) is this not contrary to the Minister’s ‘in kind’ description of aid to Nauru; and (c) what transparency and accountability measures have been put in place for these new payments.

(3) Will the Minister renew his unfulfilled undertaking to provide a listing of the component parts of Australian money given to Nauru as part of the so-called ‘Pacific Solution’.

25  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade—

(1) Is the department currently involved in attempting to facilitate access for Australian rural exports to the Philippines; if so, in each case: (a) what is the product Australia is seeking to export; (b) what was the original timetable set by the department for accessing the Philippine market; (c) what is the process being following in order to facilitate access; and (d) what is the current timetable for accessing the market.

(2) In each case, if there have been any delays in accessing the Philippine market: (a) what caused the delay; (b) when did the action or incident that caused the delay occur; and (c) what action has the department taken to overcome the problem.

26  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—In the 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 financial years, by month: (a) how many air operating certificates (AOCs) were suspended; (b) how many AOC holders were issued with a ‘Show Cause’ notice; (c) how many AOCs were cancelled; and (d) how many AOC holders surrendered their AOCs.

27  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade—

(1) (a) What is the cost of the Reflection Sydney 2000 promotion; and (b) who met that cost.

(2) What consultancies have been let as part of the campaign, in each case: (a) who is the consultant; (b) what is the cost of each consultancy; and (c) what is the duration of each consultancy.

(3) (a) How many videos were produced as part of the promotion; (b) to whom were these videos distributed; and (c) what was the cost of the production of the videos.

(4) (a) How many books were produced as part of the promotion; (b) to whom were these books distributed; and (c) what was the cost of the production of the books.

(5) (b) How many CD ROMS were produced as part of the promotion; (b) to whom were these CD ROMS distributed; and (c) what was the cost of the production of the CD ROMS.

(6) What additional costs including travel costs have been, or will be incurred, as part of this promotion.

28  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) (a) When did the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) enter into a formal agreement with the sports aviation sector in relation to the administration of sports aviation; and (b) when did that agreement come into affect.

(2) Can a copy of that agreement be provided.

(3) Did that agreement impose conditions on the sports aviation sector in relation to the maintenance of ultralight aircraft; if so: (a) what were those conditions; and (b) were they provided in a technical manual that required the approval of the CAA; if so, (i) when was the manual approved, and (ii) can a copy be provided.

(4) (a) When did the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) enter into an agreement with the Australian Ultralight Federation in relation to the administration of sports aviation; and (b) when did that agreement come in affect.

(5) Can a copy of that agreement be provided.

(6) Did that agreement impose conditions on the sports aviation sector in relation to the maintenance of ultralight aircraft; if so: (a) what were those conditions; and (b) were they provided in a technical manual that required the approval of CASA; if so, (i) when was the manual approved, and (ii) can a copy be provided.

(7) Since the first sports aviation technical manual was approved: (a) on how many occasions has the manual been amended; (b) when was each amendment made; (c) on each occasion who initiated the amendment; and (d) what was the nature of each amendment.

29  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Did the agreement between the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the sports aviation sector in relation to the administration of sports aviation require the development and approval of an operations manual prior to the agreement coming into effect; if so: (a) when was that operations manual approved by the CAA; and (b) can a copy be provided.

(2) Did the agreement between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the Australian Ultralight Federation in relation to the administration of sports aviation require the development and approval of an operations manual prior to the agreement coming into effect; if so: (a) when was the operations manual approved by CASA; and (b) can a copy of that agreement be provided.

(3) Since the first sports aviation operations manual was approved: (a) on how many occasions has the manual been amended; (b) when was each amendment made; (c) on each occasion who initiated the amendment; and (d) what was the nature of each amendment.

30  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) When was the proposal for a bypass around Moree first brought to the Minister’s attention or the attention of his staff.

(2) (a) Who raised the Moree bypass proposal with the Minister or his staff; and (b) how was the proposal first raised.

(3) (a) When was the proposal for a Moree bypass first raised with the department; (b) who raised the proposal; and (c) how was it first raised with the department.

31  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—Did the Minister or his staff contact the Moree Plains Council about the proposed Moree bypass; if so: (a) when was contact made; (b) who initiated the contact; and (c) was the contact with or by the Minister, or his staff.

32  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—Did the Minister or his staff contact the Moree Chamber of Commerce about the proposed Moree bypass; if so: (a) when was contact made; (b) who initiated the contact; and (c) was the contact with or by the Minister, or his staff.

33  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—Did the Minister or his staff contact the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority about the proposed Moree bypass; if so: (a) when was contact made; (b) who initiated the contact; and (c) was the contact with or by the Minister, or his staff.

34  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) When did the department first become aware of a proposal for a Moree bypass contained in forward strategy reports prepared by the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority.

(2) When did the proposed Moree bypass first appear in the above forward strategy reports.

(3) When was federal funding first allocated for the development of a proposal for the construction of the proposed bypass.

(4) (a) How much funding has been allocated to date; and (b) what is the purpose of this funding.

(5) If no funding has yet been allocated, when will funding be allocated for the Moree bypass.

35  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) What negotiations or discussions have there been with the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), the Moree Plains Council and the Moree Chamber of Commerce about possible Commonwealth funding for the proposed Moree bypass.

(2) (a) When did those negotiations or discussions take place with the RTA, the Council and the Chamber of Commerce; (b) who initiated those discussions; (c) what role did the Minister or his staff play in those discussions; and (d) what was the outcome of those discussions.

36  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) What assessment process has been undertaken to date of the route selection for the proposed Moree bypass.

(2) What role has, or will, the department play in the above route selection process.

(3) What role has, or will, the Minister or his staff play in the above route selection process.

(4) (a) Who initiated the route selection process; (b) what has been the cost to date; and (c) who has undertaken the above work.

(5) (a) What has been the public consultative process followed to date in relation to the above route selection process; (b) who is managing that process; and (c) what has been the outcome of that process.

(6) (a) How many routes are currently under consideration; (b) what is the estimated cost of each of these options; (c) what is the level of community support and what is the basis of that support for each of the above options; and (d) what is the environmental impact of each of these options.

37  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) What negotiations or discussions have there been with the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), the Moree Plains Council and the Moree Chamber of Commerce about route options for the proposed Moree bypass.

(2) (a) When did those negotiations or discussions take place with the RTA, the Council and the Chamber of Commerce; (b) who initiated those discussions; (c) what role did the Minister or his staff play in those discussions; and (d) what was the outcome of those discussions.

(3) What route options for a Moree bypass have been contained in forward strategy reports prepared by the RTA.

(4) When did those route options first appear in the RTA forward strategy reports.

38  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Since January 1999, how many staff employed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have been relocated at the Authority’s expense.

(2) In each case: (a) what position did the officer hold prior to the transfer; (b) where was the officer located; (c) where was each officer transferred to; and (d) what position did the officer hold following the transfer.

(3) In each case: (a) when did the transfer take place; and (b) what relocation and other allowances were paid to the officer.

(4) In each case, what was the value and duration of each of the above location and other allowances.

(5) Since January 1999, have any officers been relocated on more that one occasion; if so: (a) how many officers were involved; and (b) in each case, on how many occasions has each officer been relocated.

39  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Can the Minister confirm that a letter (reference K98/1492—K98/1751) contained in documents (file reference K99—92—0007) relating to an investigation into heavy vehicles undertaken by Roaduser International, and tabled in response to an order for the production of documents by the Senate, was not the only written communication from Louise and John Bauer.

(2) If all written communications from Mrs and Mr Bauer were contained in the documents tabled on 27 November 2000 in response to the order, can the Minister provide specific reference numbers for the additional documents.

(3) If all written communications from Mrs and Mr Bauer were not contained in the tabled documents: (a) why were they deleted; and (b) can copies of all these documents be provided.

40  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Can the Minister confirm that an inspection of a heavy vehicle, a Mack CH Fleetliner (F4), took place on 24 March 1999 as part of an investigation into problems associated with heavy vehicles (reference K99—92—0008 in documents tabled in the Senate on 27 November 2000).

(2) Was the inspection undertaken by Mr Warren Duncan.

(3) Did Mr Duncan discover serious safety problems with that vehicle.

(4) Did Mr Duncan make a number of recommendations following his inspection of the above vehicle; if so: (a) what were those recommendations; and (b) who was responsible for implementing those recommendations.

(5) Is the Minister, his office or the department aware that the significant safety problems discovered with the above vehicle have still not been corrected and the vehicle continues to operate on public roads; if so, when was the Minister, his office or the department made aware that this vehicle was still operating on public roads despite significant safety problems.

(6) (a) What action has the Minister taken to ensure the above vehicle does not pose a threat to other road users; and (b) when was that action taken.

41  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Can the Minister confirm that Mr Scott McFarlane wrote to Mr McLucas from the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) on 18 February 1999, advising of inspections of nine prime movers (reference K99—92—00117 in documents tabled in the Senate on 27 November 2000).

(2) Did Mr McFarlane advise that while all vehicles exhibited problems, four vehicles: a 1997 Mack Titan (F17), a 1997 HN 80 Ford (F6), a HN 80 Ford (F13) and another Ford prime mover were, in fact, unsafe.

(3) Is the Minister aware of a fax from Mr Peter Sweatman from Roaduser International to Mr Bill Ellis from the department dated 30 June 1999, concerning a draft report from the Driver Education Centre of Australia (DECA) relating to the above inspections (reference L99—390—38 in the documents tabled).

(4) (a) Is the Minister aware that that fax stated in part: ‘Subsequently we have confirmed with DECA that the report prepared by Lindsay Pollock is a draft only. We are now awaiting a copy of the final report which may not include the opinion comments on safety concerns to which you have referred’; and (b) is the Minister aware that Mr Ellis noted in the margin of that fax that the contents of the above paragraph were ‘amazing’.

(5) Did FORS request that it continue to be advised of any safety problems identified by DECA or Roaduser International following the fax from Mr Sweatman to Mr Ellis dated 30 June 1999; if so: (a) on how many occasions was such information provided to FORS; (b) when was the information provided; and (c) what action did FORS take following receipt of that information.

(6) Did FORS provide that information to vehicle owners or manufacturers; if so: (a) when was it provided; (b) what was the nature of the information provided; and (c) to whom was it provided.

(7) If FORS did not request that information relating to the safety of vehicles used as part of the inquiry continue to be provided, why not.

(8) Did FORS seek legal advice as to the status of the reports from Roaduser International and any comments about vehicle safety contained in those reports; if not, why not; if so: (a) when was the legal advice sought; (b) who provided the advice; (c) when was the legal advice received; (d) what did the advice relate to; and (e) what action did FORS take following receipt of that legal advice.

(9) When was the Minister or his office first advised that a number of the vehicles tested were found to be unsafe to operate.

(10) What action did the Minister or his office take in response to that advice to ensure unsafe heavy vehicles did not continue to operate on public roads.

(11) If the Minister or his office was not advised, why not.

(12) Given that these vehicles were deemed to be unsafe at that time: (a) what action was taken; and (b) who took the action to correct the problems with the vehicles or required that they be removed from public roads until they were considered to be safe to operate.

(13) Did these four vehicles referred to in document K99—92—00117 exhibit exactly the same unsafe characteristics; if not, what were the differences in the problems identified in each of the above vehicles.

(14) If those four vehicles did exhibit the same unsafe characteristics, does that suggest a design problem with those vehicles.

42  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Can the Minister confirm that a Mack Titan truck (F19) inspected as part of an investigation into problems associated with heavy vehicles exhibited similar problems to those identified in the Mack Titan prime mover (F7) (reference K99—590—00030 in documents tabled in the Senate on 27 November 2000).

(2) If both the above vehicles displayed similar problems, does that suggest a design problem with that vehicle type.

43  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Is the Minister aware that Mr Michael Klug, a partner from Clayton Utz, wrote to Mr John Lambert from Roaduser International on 8 April 1999, on behalf of Mack Trucks Australia, criticising a report on the results of vehicle tests carried out in Adelaide on 25 March 1999 (reference K99—590—00098 in documents tabled in the Senate on 27 November 2000).

(2) Is the Minister aware that the letter states in part: ‘We find it astounding that Mack Trucks Australia has not been afforded the opportunity to drive and/or test this vehicle or indeed any of the vehicles that you have been testing’.

(3) Can the Minister confirm that on three separate occasions prior to vehicle F4 being involved in the heavy vehicle investigation, Mack Trucks Australia was given the opportunity to test drive vehicle F4 but refused.

(4) Can the Minister also confirm that Mack Trucks Australia was also given a number of opportunities to test drive vehicle F26 but refused those offers.

(5) If the Minister cannot confirm that Mack Trucks Australia was invited to test both of the above vehicles, will he seek advice from Mack Trucks Australia as to whether such offers were made and the basis for the company’s refusal to test drive the trucks.

44  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Can the Minister confirm that Mack Trucks Australia were given the opportunity to attend a Mack instrumentation test drive in Melbourne on 17 May 1999 (reference K99—804—143 in documents tabled in the Senate on 27 November 2000).

(2) Was the attendance of the company at the tests a result of a request by Mack Trucks Australia, an offer by the Minister or his office, an offer by the department, or an offer by the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS).

(3) If the attendance of the company at the tests was the result of an offer from the Minister, his office or the department: (a) when was the offer made; (b) what was the reason for the offer; and (c) who approved the offer.

(4) If the attendance of the company at the tests was the result of an request to the Minister or his office, the department or FORS, by the company: (a) who was the request made to; (b) when was the request made; (c) what was the reason for the request; (d) who made the decision to agree to the request; and (e) did the Minister or his office approve the decision to agree to the request.

45  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Can the Minister confirm that the owners of vehicle F4 inspected as part of an investigation into problems associated with heavy vehicles by Roaduser International were denied the opportunity to be present when the vehicle was being tested in May 1999.

(2) Was the attendance of the vehicle owners at the tests refused as a result of a decision by the Minister, his office, the department or by the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS).

(3) If the attendance of the owners of the vehicle was denied as a result of a decision by the Minister, his office, the department or FORS: (a) when was the decision made; and (b) what was the reason for the decision.

46  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Did an engineer acting on behalf of Mrs and Mr Bauer request, on 26 May 1999, access to the Mack trucks F4 and F26, owned by the Bauers, at the Driver Trainer Education Centre of Australia in Melbourne, to facilitate a superficial inspection (reference K99—804—221 in documents tabled in the Senate on 27 November 2000).

(2) Was the request refused; if so: (a) who refused the request; (b) what was the basis for the refusal; and (c) was the Minister or his office aware of the request and did the Minister or his office approve the decision to refuse the request.

47  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Did the Federal Office of Road Safety invite Mack Trucks Australia, Ford/Stirling and Kenworth Australia to attend a technical briefing in Melbourne on 10 June 1999, conducted by Roaduser International relating to its inquiry into heavy vehicles (reference K99—804—268 in documents tabled in the Senate on 27 November 2000).

(2) Were any of the owners of vehicles that were the subject of testing by Roaduser International or independent engineers representing those owners invited to attend the briefing; if not, why not.

(3) (a) Who made the decision not to invite the vehicle owners or their technical advisers; (b) was the Minister or his office advised of the decision; and (c) did the Minister or his office endorse the decision.

48  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Can the Minister confirm that there were three permits to operate unlicensed vehicles obtained to test vehicles F4 and F1 as part of the inquiry into heavy vehicles conducted by Roaduser International (reference K99—917—24 in documents tabled in the Senate on 27 November 2000).

(2) Was vehicle F4 tested on two occasions.

(3) (a) Why was vehicle F4 tested on two occasions; and (b) was raw data collected and stored on a CD Rom on both occasions.

(4) Can the Minister confirm that only one CD Rom was provided to the owners of vehicle F4; if so: (a) why was the second CD Rom withheld from the vehicle owners; and (b) does the Minister plan to provide the second CD Rom to the owners of vehicle F4 at some future time.

49  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Further to the answer provided to question on notice no. 3531 (Senate Hansard , 20 August 2001, pp 26019-22), what funding has been allocated to specific projects on each of the roads identified in answers (4)(a) to (d).

(2) (a) What is the nature of each of the above projects; (b) what is the level of funding allocated to each of the above projects; (c) over what period has funding been allocated to each of the above projects; and (d) in what category of funding does each of the above projects appear.

(3) Is the above information relating to specific projects for all roads identified in answers (4)(a) to (d) provided to each state government or state transport department; if so: (a) how often is this information provided to each state; and (b) when is the above information provided to each state.

50  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) When did Mr Kym Brougham, or someone on behalf of Mr Brougham, first approach the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) seeking approval to take the position of acting Chief Pilot with Whyalla Airlines.

(2) How was the above approach made and to whom was the approach made.

(3) (a) When did CASA respond to the above approach; (b) who responded; and (c) what was the nature of the response.

51  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) When did Mr Kym Brougham, or someone on behalf of Mr Brougham, apply to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for approval to take the position of acting Chief Pilot with Whyalla Airlines.

(2) How was the above application made and to whom was the application made.

(3) (a) When did CASA respond to the above application; (b) who responded; and (c) when did the approval for Mr Brougham to act as Chief Pilot take effect.

52  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) On how many occasions did the Minister or his staff meet with, or hold a discussion with, the owners, directors or employees of Whyalla Airlines between 1 December 1999 and 31 May 2000.

(2) On each occasion: (a) who attended the meeting, or participated in the discussion; (b) when did the meeting or discussion take place; and (c) where did the meeting or discussion take place.

(3) If any of the above discussions took place by telephone, where were the parties involved in each discussion located.

53  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) Did the Minister receive any written, electronic or oral representations on behalf of Mr Chris Brougham or Mr Kym Brougham concerning the appointment of Mr Kym Brougham as acting Chief Pilot, and later Chief Pilot, for Whyalla Airlines between 1 December 1999 and 31 May 2000; if so: (a) when was each representation made; (b) what was the form of the representation; and (c) what was nature of the representation.

(2) (a) When were the above representations responded to; (b) who responded; and (c) what was the nature of the response.

54  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—

(1) When did Mr Kym Brougham, or someone on behalf of Mr Brougham, first approach the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) seeking approval to take the position of Chief Pilot with Whyalla Airlines.

(2) How was the above approach made and to whom was the approach made.

(3) (a) When did CASA respond to the above approach; (b) who responded; and (c) what was the nature of the response.

55  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer—

(1) Is it the case that the Melbourne office of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) failed to notify trustees of pre-existing pooled superannuation trusts (PSTs) that, under new regulations, they were required to notify APRA in writing that they wished their trusts to continue to be treated as PSTs by 31 October 2000.

(2) Is it the case that trusts that have failed to so notify APRA will become non-complying superannuation funds, attracting a tax rate of 48.5 per cent on fund earnings instead of the concessional 15 per cent.

(3) How long has APRA been aware of the failure to notify outlined in (1).

(4) How long has the Minister or the department been aware of the failure to notify.

(5) Has APRA or the Government taken any action to resolve this matter.

(6) What action will the Government and APRA be taking to resolve this matter.

56  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister for Health and Ageing—When will the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency be updating its website (The Maralinga Rehabilitation Project 1996-1999 and Maralinga Rehabilitation Project Gallery: Part 1 1998) with respect to the pits in which in situ vitrification was not used.

59  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister for Health and Ageing—

(1) Is it the case that the Chiltern Hospital in Victoria will receive $185 000 a year for support services from the Small Rural Hospitals Fund.

(2) When will this funding commence.

(3) Is the Minister aware that the Chiltern Hospital Committee of Management has advised that this support will not be adequate to avert closure of the hospital because of the number of older people in the hospital.

(4) What measures does the Government propose to adopt in the event of closure of the hospital.

(5) Will the Government consider providing a $55 a day operational subsidy to the hospital for these residents given that this is the only aged care option for these people; if not, why not.

Senator Allison: To ask the Ministers listed below (Question Nos 61-76)—

(1) (a) When did the department last conduct an audit of heritage values in its properties; and (b) can that report be made available.

(2) Does the department have policies, protocols and/or guidelines for the protection of heritage values in its properties; if not, why not.

(3) (a) What is the budget for maintenance and conservation works in the department for the 2001-02 financial year; and (b) how does this compare with each of the previous four financial years.

(4) Which properties has the department sold over the past five years that have heritage values.

(5) Which of these are listed on the Register of the National Estate.

(6) Which of these have state government and local government protection.

(7) What are the department’s policy, protocol and/or guidelines for archiving documents.

(8) (a) Does the department have a collection of artworks and/or artefacts, including documents, of heritage value; (b) are these documented; and (c) is there a budget for acquisition or conservation of such work.

(9) Does the department use the National Culture-Leisure Industry Statistical Framework prepared by the Cultural Ministers’ Council in compiling data; if not, why not.

(10) For those services contracted out, what arrangements, guidelines and requirements are in place to safeguard records for archiving.

(11) (a) What, if any, historical guides and publications on heritage were prepared by the department in the 2000-01 financial year; and (b) what is the budget for this purpose in the 2001-02 financial year.

61 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

62 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

63 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

64 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

65 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

66 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

67 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

68 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

69 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

70 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

71 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

72 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

73 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

74 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

75 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

76 Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

77  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Ageing—

(1) How many 20 year-olds were provided with government-funded hearing aids by the Australian Hearing Service (AHS) in the 1999-2000 financial year, broken down by state.

(2) How many 21 year-olds were provided with government-funded hearing aids by the AHS in the 1999-2000 financial year.

(3) How many 21 year-olds were provided with government-funded hearing aids by the AHS in the 2000-01 financial year.

(4) (a) What, if any, AHS centres were closed in 1999, 2000 and to date in 2001; and (b) which of these were in country areas.

(5) What was the reason for these closures.

(6) (a) How many audiologists are currently employed by the AHS; (b) how many were employed in 1999; and (c) how many were employed in 2000.

(7) What is the policy rationale for hearing aids not being provided by the AHS to hearing impaired people over 21 years of age.

(8) Why is it that hearing impaired people over 21 years of age are not able to purchase services, including hearing aids, from the AHS.

78  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister—

(1) Was the Prime Minister accurately reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 May 2001 as saying, ‘…I don’t think people should be in any way discriminated against or personalised against if they are homosexual.’

(2) Does the Government intend to remove discrimination against homosexual couples with regard to superannuation entitlements for surviving partners of members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme; if so, when.

80  Senator Harris: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs—

(1) What was the purchase price paid by the Indigenous Land Corporation to acquire the Roebuck Plains cattle station.

(2) What was the price paid by the vendors of the Roebuck Plains when it was purchased some 12 months prior to the resale to the Indigenous Land Corporation.

(3) What was the reason for the substantial increase in sale price over that 12-month period.

(4) Was the price paid by the Indigenous Land Corporation for Roebuck Plains within commercial valuation at the time.

(5) Was a commercial valuation of Roebuck Plains undertaken prior to its purchase by the Indigenous Land Corporation.

(6) Why did the Indigenous Land Corporation purchase Roebuck Plains when there was no registration of a land need or application by proponents.

(7) Was there an assessment of Roebuck Plains against National Indigenous Land Strategy criteria before the Indigenous Land Corporation Board considered a purchase proposal.

(8) Who negotiated the purchase price of Roebuck Plains.

(9) Why did the Indigenous Land Corporation not utilise its usual service provider, KFPW, in negotiating a purchase price.

(10) Was a cattle muster conducted prior to the Indigenous Land Corporation’s purchase of Roebuck Plains.

(11) Why did the Indigenous Land Corporation enter into a 15-year management agreement with the vendors of Roebuck Plains that effectively locked Aboriginal people out of the arrangement.

(12) What capital investment did the vendors of Roebuck Plains (Great Northern Pastoral Company) make to entitle their retaining about 50 per cent of all profits for the 15-year period of the management agreement.

(13) Why did the Indigenous Land Corporation pay the Great Northern Pastoral Company $1 million to extricate itself from the 15-year management agreement that still had 14 years to run.

(14) Who negotiated the 15-year management agreement.

(15) Was a commission paid to the person or persons who negotiated the purchase price and management agreement.

(16) (a) Who are the directors of the Great Northern Pastoral Company; and (b) do any of them have a criminal record.

(17) Was there any relationship between the Great Northern Pastoral Company and the deceased Max Green.

(18) Is there any relationship between David Baffsky, a director of the Indigenous Land Corporation, and the Great Northern Pastoral Company.

(19) Is there any relationship between David Baffsky and John Vereker, a director of the Great Northern Pastoral Company.

(20) Was there a relationship between David Baffsky and Max Green.

(21) Have there been any money laundering activities evident at Roebuck Plains, or investigations into such activities.

(22) Has a commercial crop of marijuana been grown at Roebuck Plains whilst that station was owned or jointly managed by the Great Northern Pastoral Company.

(23) When the Indigenous Land Corporation purchased a related cattle property, Cardabia Station, did the corporation assist the vendor in avoiding a taxation obligation by attributing false valuations to land and stock.

(24) Did two directors and the Chief Executive Officer of the Indigenous Land Corporation enter into negotiations with the former owners of Roebuck Plains (Great Northern Pastoral Company) to strip the station of its stock without the knowledge or consent of other directors of the corporation.

(25) Was the price proposed by the Great Northern Pastoral Company for the purchase of the entire cattle herd of Roebuck Plains in accord with then current market prices.

81  Senator Harris: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—With reference to documents relating to heavy truck specifications tabled pursuant to orders of the Senate:

(1) In the middle of 1999 was a data disc deliberately corrupted by Mr Scott McFarlane of Roaduser International before being sent to the owner of F1, so that it would be unusable and thus prevent others from analysing the data, and that an uncorrupted disc was not sent until 2 to 3 months later.

(2) Were the air fare and related accommodation costs for the Melbourne to Brisbane return trip on 13 May 1999 that were listed in the external supplier expense document (K99-917, 024-026) relating to the Roaduser Report used solely for that purpose and not used to subsidise the costs of Roaduser personnel attending other functions at the Brisbane Truck Show, unrelated to the report.

(3) Was the second testing of F4, a Mack CH Fleetliner prime mover, undertaken at the request of the manufacturer; if so, was the expense of this additional test costed to the report or to the manufacturer.

(4) (a) Did the manufacturer of the Australian-designed and tested Hendrickson WD2 460 suspension that was fitted to the worst performing vehicle, F6, withdraw that suspension from the market early in 2001 after claiming there was nothing wrong with it; and (b) is it a fact that the manufacturer has no substitute available until a new suspension is introduced in 2002; if so: (i) why was the suspension withdrawn, and (ii) if it was due to its poor performance, why has there not been a recall or other action taken in relation to other vehicles similar in style to F6 fitted with that suspension.

(5) (a) Was Roaduser International’s tender for this investigation $79 400, compared with the losing bidder’s quote of about $120 000; and (b) was the final payment to Roaduser International close to $580 000.

(6) With reference to documents T1112- 121-138 and K99-804—126-132, did Roaduser International tender to undertake publicity and problem definition for $8 000, inspect-and-drive appraisals of 6 vehicles for $14 850 ($2 470 each), instrumented testing of 4 vehicles for $33 050 ($8 250 each), computer simulation and analysis relating to 4 instrumented tests for $21 000, assessment of vehicles against industry standards for $5 000, risk amelioration and problem scoping for $3 000 and a report of the investigation for $5 000.

(7) Did Roaduser charge about $80 000 to appraise 13 vehicles ($6 200 each, or 2.5 times the quoted cost per vehicle) even though it did not undertake analysis of each vehicle using Roaduser’s in-house, computer-based performance assessment and did not undertake a lane-change manoeuvre.

(8) Did Roaduser charge about $340 000 for 8 instrumented tests and drives ($42 500 each, or 5 times the quoted cost per vehicle) even though the number of channels of data quoted to be collected was a minimum of 28 compared with only 3 more collected, and evaluation of the vehicle negotiating a standard bump and a steady turn and under severe braking were not carried out.

(9) In relation to the investigation: (a) was Roaduser allowed to charge, for graduate engineers with about 2-years experience on $40 000 per year (or $30 per chargeable hour), a rate around $150 per hour, or more than twice the rate generally charged by consultants for such engineers; (b) were the charge-out rates for the Chief Engineer and Manager Accident Mitigation $250 per hour, and the rate for Dr Peter Sweatman $350 per hour; and (c) have there been any other consultants in the road transport field for which the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has paid similar charge-out rates; if not, can the Minister advise why these rates were paid for this investigation.

(10) Can the Minister confirm that: (a) while the Federal Office of Road Safety tender suggested the use of subcontracted, experienced and qualified organisations to conduct the vibration related tests of the investigation, Roaduser, which was not an experienced or qualified organisation in this field, undertook this work itself; (b) Roaduser quoted on, and undertook measuring of, driver’s seat vibration in the vertical and fore-aft directions only, even though the relevant international standard (ISO 2631-1) required measurements in the side-to-side direction as well, and rates this vibration as being more important than the vertical direction; (c) in order to undertake this work, the Chief Engineer purchased a text on vibration around August 1999; (d) much of the analysis of ‘vibration’ and other data was undertaken by a PhD student with no specific skills in either heavy vehicles or vibration; and (e) Roaduser charged the same hourly rate for this work even though it was not expert in the field.

(11) Given the above, what action is being taken to recover excess monies paid to Roaduser under this contract.

82  Senator Harris: To ask the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts—

(1) Why did the Minister’s office take from 14 June 2000 until 14 November 2000 to initially respond to a freedom of information (FOI) request by Kenneth Ivory, in relation to ‘Casualties of Telstra’ (COT) related matters.

(2) What action is the Minister going to take to rectify the fact that the department’s delay has, whether intentionally or inadvertently, resulted in Mr Ivory not having FOI documents and not being in a position to present his case in January 2001 to the Supreme Court of Queensland.

(3) Is the Minister aware that this FOI delay potentially had the same effect as in the five COT cases listed in Schedule A and Schedule B of the Senate working paper of 1997, whose matters also related to breaches of FOI by Telstra.

(4) What action will the Minister take to have Telstra, or the relevant department, settle Mr Ivory’s damages immediately.

(5) Why were Mr Ivory’s (Solar-Mesh) COT-related matters not settled prior to the Telstra ‘T2’ float, under the same terms and conditions as the five COT cases listed in Schedule A of the Senate committee’s working paper of 1997.

(6) Will Mr Ivory’s damages claim immediately be resolved, under no less than the same terms and conditions as the five resolved COT cases listed in Schedule A that were settled just before the T2 float; if not, why not.

(7) (a) How many people with COT-related issues has Telstra had arrested, or attempted to have arrested, under a mental health warrant, peace and good behaviour warrant or criminal warrant.

(8) Was the purpose of that action to assist Telstra to assassinate the character of the COTs and to conceal the truth about systemic faults, to comply with Freehill, Hollingdale and Page’s ‘COT case strategy’, dated 10 September 1993.

(9) How many of these COT-related matters have already been settled.

(10) Against how many people with COT-related issues has Telstra and/or its lawyers prevailed on federal or state police to falsify police records to assassinate those people’s character and reputation to assist in concealing the truth about Telstra’s defective network, by use of corporate thuggery and neglect of duty of care.

(11) Were any Telstra employees (and/or their agents) involved in having police records and/or mental health reports falsified to cause injury to COT-related people; if so, who were they.

(12) What are the names of the police officers, medical practitioners, or others (and/or their agents) involved in having COTs defamed, intimidated, harassed or wrongfully arrested and who have been obtaining either mental health warrants, bogus psychiatric reports or bogus psychologists assessments made, based solely on information from Telstra or its agents, or who were involved in apprehension warrants being wrongfully obtained against COTs.

(13) (a) Were any persons from within or associated with the Minister’s office involved in the actions described in (12); if so, who were they; and (b) were any of these warrants ever condoned by the Minister.

(14) Were any Telstra employees (and/or their agents) involved in wrongfully obtaining warrants; if so, who were they.

(15) Did Telstra’s former chairman, Mr David Hoare, have any conflict of interest.

(16) What other directorships has Mr David Hoare held from 1990 to date.

(17) Did any conflict of interest occur when Mr Stephen Mead, while seconded from Mallesons Stephen Jacques to Telstra, became in January 1996 a partner in Mallesons Stephen Jacques, while remaining on secondment to Telstra.

(18) On what specific date did Mr Stephen Mead cease being a seconded employee of Telstra.

(19) Is there any outstanding Telstra documentation that has not been provided under FOI and discovery processes; if so: (a) why has there been a delay in providing that information; and (b) when can Mr Ivory expect to receive that outstanding information, whether professional legal privilege has previously been claimed or not.

(20) Are there any outstanding documents under FOI and non-party disclosure in the Minister’s offices; if so, when can Mr Ivory expect to receive this outstanding information, whether professional legal privilege has been previously claimed or not.

(21) Did Telstra employee, Mr Armstrong, attempt to have Mr Ivory sign a Telstra deed of settlement in January or February 2001, to walk away from his claims against Telstra and Mr Mead.

(22) Was the Minister aware that Telstra was attempting to have Mr Ivory commit illegal and unauthorised acts had he signed the settlement deed.

(23) Has the Minister condoned unconscionable conduct by Telstra’s authorised officer in his attempt to silence Mr Ivory’s claims while Mr Ivory was unrepresented.

(24) Why did Telstra refuse to pay for Mr Ivory to seek independent legal representation to advise Mr Ivory of Telstra’s proposed settlement deed terms that Telstra tried to force Mr Ivory into signing without time or money to seek advice before Telstra withdrew the settlement offer.

(25) What action will be taken under administrative law to prevent such mismanagement of Telstra continuing to unjustly sabotage Mr Ivory’s life and livelihood.

(26) (a) Why did Telstra take from 11 May 1994 until 1 June 1994 to test Mr Ivory’s 1800 prefix complaint.

(27) (a) Is it Telstra’s policy that, when any line/number fault is reported it is logged into Telstra’s fault reporting system; (b) is it correct that a standard set of remote tests are immediately conducted in the first instance; and (c) if the fault cannot be rectified or found remotely, is a field technician dispatched to attend the premises; if so, why was this process not followed with Mr Ivory’s 1800 fault complaint.

(28) Why did Telstra only test the 1800 fault reported by Mr Ivory after the fault had been rectified at the exchange on the 31 May 1994.

(29) Did Telstra fabricate and falsify its records and documentation to conceal the 1800 prefix systemic fault.

(30) How many 1800 subscribers did Telstra have in September 1993.

(31) Why has Telstra withheld ‘as obviously irrelevant’ information consistent with the possibility of proving innocence.

83  Senator Harris: To ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General—With reference to the Family Court of Australia:

(1) Given that there are obviously financial costs involved in family breakdown, the chief of these being the costs of litigation, what are the department’s estimates of the average cost of such litigation and the number of children affected for each of the past 5 years.

(2) Would the Minister please confirm or deny the accuracy of the following statistics: That children from fatherless homes account for: (a) 60 per cent of youth suicides; (b) 65 per cent of teenage pregnancies; (c) 65 per cent of adolescent drug abusers; and (d) 75 per cent of all homeless or run away children.

(3) What are the liaison procedures between the Family Court and state government agencies that ensure that no Family Court litigant can manipulate differing jurisdictions in ways that can result in functional abuses of process.

(4) How many convictions for perjury have there been in the Family Court since its inception.

(5) Is section 121 of the Family Law Act in need of revision or repeal.

(6) Would the Minister please confirm or deny that three men in Australia commit suicide every day whilst involved in Family Court proceedings or following such proceedings.

(7) What is the Government’s position with regard to the concept that ‘joint parenting’ should be the Family Court’s first and favoured residential presumption (as was the objective of the amendments of 1995).

84  Senator Harris: To ask the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts—

(1) Is it correct that the Minister and/or his department claimed that the terms of reference for the Senate Working Party investigating the ‘Casualties of Telstra’ (COT) allegations in 1997 had to be changed on the basis that the previously settled terms, which included all the 21 COT group members would impede upon and prevent the further privatisation of Telstra (ie the ‘T2’ float).

(2) Can the Minister explain how the amended terms of reference did not impede upon the T2 float and how, by omitting the other 16 members of the COT group, this would do so.

85  Senator Murray: To ask the Special Minister of State—With reference to members’ and senators’ entitlements:

(1) Which entitlements are not separately identified in management reports.

(2) Which entitlements are not audited.

(3) Which entitlements are not benchmarked (assuming ‘benchmarking’ means that members and senators that incur abnormal expenditures would be asked to explain significant deviances).

(4) Which entitlements are not the subject of public reports.

86  Senator Murray: To ask the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer—

(1) Were any applications made to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) prior to 1 July 1998 for finance brokers in Western Australia to be exempted from the Corporations Law requirements with respect to prescribed interests; if so: (a) when was each application made; (b) by whom and on whose behalf was each application made; (c) when was the application determined; and (d) what was the outcome of each application and what were the reasons for the decision for each application.

(2) Did ASIC enforce the Corporations Law against finance brokers who were offering ‘Pooled Mortgage Schemes’ in contravention of the law in Western Australia.

(3) Is ASIC, in Western Australia, now taking steps to ensure that each prospectus issued in Western Australian Pooled Mortgage Schemes are in all respects accurate and reliable: if not, why not.

87  Senator Murray: To ask the Special Minister of State—

(1) Can the full details of all use of entitlements by retired members of parliament (on the same reporting basis as applies to current members of parliament) for the 2000-01 financial year be provided.

(2) With reference to the revelation in the Australian National Audit Office’s report Parliamentarians’ Entitlements: 1999-2000 that a number of parliamentarians had used entitlements that significantly exceeded the average, could the Minister please indicate (with respect to those that did significantly exceed the average): (a) whether the use of these entitlements by those parliamentarians has been investigated to determine if it is proper; and (b) what action is being taken with regard to the use of these entitlements that significantly exceeded the average.

(3) Without limiting the scope of the questions above, which apply to all relevant entitlements, could the Minister please address the questions outlined in (2) (a) and (2) (b) with respect to the following entitlements: (a) personalised stationery, newsletters and other printing; (b) photographic services; (c) photocopy paper; and (d) flags for presentation to constituents.