Mr ABBOTT (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs)(10.40 p.m.) —In the electorate of Lindsay at the moment a lot of people are saying that the former member, Mr Ross Free, is guilty of sour grapes and the Labor Party is guilty of being a sore loser. Be that as it may, the real standard that needs to be applied in this by-election is his own standard, the standard that the former member, Mr Ross Free, set when he forced the electors of Lindsay to a by-election, the standard that he set when he forced the Australian taxpayer to shell out half a million dollars because, as he said, Jackie Kelly held an office of profit under the Crown.

His standard is that it is absolutely improper for any member to run for parliament holding an office of profit under the Crown. As members would know, Ross Free was himself a former teacher in the New South Wales education system. As the Cleary case made clear, teachers must resign from the teaching service to avoid being guilty of holding an office of profit under the Crown. Mr Free certainly knew this because on 12 September 1996 he told the Sydney Morning Herald that he had had to resign from parliament three times to contest elections, but that is not what he thought in 1980. In 1980, before this office of profit under the Crown issue arose, he told the Penrith Press that he had merely taken leave of absence from his teaching position.

Freedom of information requests have been put in concerning the date of Mr Free's resignation from the New South Wales teaching service. A letter was received from the New South Wales Department of School Education on 8 July 1996 stating:

As the documents concern the personal affairs of Mr Free, I am required to consult him before making any decision to release the documents to you.

Funnily enough, another letter came back on 25 July from the New South Wales Department of School Education saying:

Mr Free—

surprise, surprise!—

has not authorised you to have information concerning his personal affairs.

The public has a right to know: does Ross Free have clean hands in this election? Does he come to the Australian people with clean hands or is he guilty of the same offence for which Jackie Kelly has been denied her seat in parliament? In the absence of any declaration by Mr Free that he did in fact resign from the teaching service, one is forced to conclude that he forced Jackie Kelly from the parliament.

Mr Leo McLeay —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a disgraceful attack on the Crown through the virtue of the High Court which made this decision, not Mr Free, and the Mad Monk knows that.

Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order.

Mr ABBOTT —May I say that I am absolutely determined to ensure that the High Court's decision regarding section 44 of the constitution is upheld not only in the letter but also in the spirit. My question is: did the former member for Lindsay, Ross Free, uphold that same section when he entered the parliament originally?

The fact of the matter is Mr Free must make available the information which the New South Wales Department of School Education has. If he is not prepared to do it, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) must force him to make this information available because the people of Lindsay are entitled to ask whether he came to this matter with clean hands. Otherwise the people of Lindsay will conclude that he himself has done exactly the same thing, that he is driving the people of Lindsay to a by-election and that he is causing the taxpayer to be out of pocket to the tune of $500,000 for the same offence that he himself committed.

In the absence of Mr Free's clearing up this matter—and I urge him to do so most urgently—we are forced to conclude that Mr Free has one standard for Jackie Kelly and another standard for himself. The ALP and members opposite are guilty of a tawdry set of double standards which have cost the Australian people $500,000.

Mr Leo McLeay —This is just another Liberal lie.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Watson will withdraw the word `lie'. It is unparliamentary.

Mr Leo McLeay —But I said it was a Liberal lie.

Mr SPEAKER —Do not qualify.

Mr Leo McLeay —I suppose being Liberal is unparliamentary, so I happily withdraw my remark, Mr Speaker.