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


Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Notice given 7 May 2003

1441  Senator Bishop: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs—

(1) For each of the past 3 financial years, how much has been spent in Outcome 2 on: (a) chiropractry; (b) osteopathy; (c) physiotherapy; (d) ophthalmology; (d) optometrical; (e) aids and appliances; (f) dentistry; (g) diagnostic imagery; and (h) pathology.

(2) Can an update be provided of the tables showing compensation claims accepted for service in Timor and the Gulf, as contained in the answer to part (6) of question on notice no. 743 (Senate Hansard , 4 December 2002, p.7212) and part (2) of question on notice no. 744 (Senate Hansard , 12 December 2002, p. 8175).

(3) Further to the answer to question on notice no. 747 (Senate Hansard , 13 November 2002, p. 6318): What is the current position with respect to the review of dosimetry data from the atomic testing program.

(4) What is the current position with respect to tendering for transport services, as sought in the answer to question on notice no. 748 (Senate Hansard , 15 November 2002, p. 6557).

(5) Further to the answer to question on notice no. 802 (Senate Hansard , 15 November 2002, p. 6558): (a) what commission has been paid to Defence Service Homes Insurance (DSHI) by QBE/Mercantile Mutual over each of the past 3 years; and (b) what proportion has that commission been of DSHI’s running costs in each year.

(6) Can an update be provided of the data in the answer to parts (4), (5), (6), (19), (23) and (26) of question on notice no. 819 (Senate Hansard , 18 March 2003, p.  9581).

(7) Further to the answer to question on notice no. 968 (Senate Hansard , 5 February 2003, p. 8661): Can an update be provided to March 2003 of the data on Department of Veterans’ Affairs health card usage and costs.

(8) With reference to the answer to question on notice 1004 (Senate Hansard , 18 March 2003, p. 9621): Were prosecutions launched against those medical providers identified by type in part (2); if not, why not; if so, with what outcome in each case.

(9) With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 697 (Senate Hansard , 11 November 2002, p. 6042) concerning the review of tier-one hospitals: Can an answer be provided to those parts which remained unanswered.