Dr SOUTHCOTT —My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of claims that voluntary student unionism will lead to the cessation of student services, clubs and societies on university campuses? Can the minister advise the House whether or not there is any basis to such claims? And does the minister have any information about the attitudes of student leaders under compulsory student unionism?

Dr KEMP (Education, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) —I thank the member for Boothby for his question. There are a number of claims being made that voluntary student unionism will lead to a cessation of student services but, unfortunately, those making those claims forget that we already have an example of how VSU is operating in Australia in the state of Western Australia. In Western Australia, student services is vibrant and student organisations are strong.

Dr Lawrence —It isn't going to happen.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Fremantle is persistently interjecting when the minister has the call. The minister.

Dr KEMP —The House does not need to take my word for this. I will quote the words of the guild president of Murdoch University.

Mr Price —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Isn't this matter listed on the Notice Paper , and I suspect debate has already begun on the matter?

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Chifley is right: the matter is listed on the Notice Paper and could, therefore, be subject to anticipation concerns.

Mr Reith —On the anticipation point, Mr Speaker—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the House has the call and is entitled to be heard in the same silence as was the member for Chifley.

Mr Reith —Mr Speaker, I simply refer you to the comments you made earlier about the tax issue. Basically the fact is that, if there is a specific reference to the legislation or provisions of the legislation, that would obviously breach the anticipation rule, but there is nothing to prevent a question which goes to the general policy matter whether it is before the House or not.

Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: House of Representatives Practice makes it absolutely clear that the distinguishing feature is when a bill is on the blue in a circumstance where it is going to be considered in detail on the day. That is exactly the circumstance with regard to this bill, not with regard to the tax bills which were previously referred to. That would be consistent with your previous rulings and the rulings of former Speakers Halverson and Sinclair.

Mr SPEAKER —The tax matter, of course, is on the blue and is being considered this day.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —There have been a number of instances during the period of this parliament when the tax bills have been for consideration on that day. I will allow this question to stand. I clearly do not expect policy matters to be announced.

Dr KEMP —The guild president of Murdoch University said this about the effect of voluntary student unionism in Western Australia:

The Murdoch guild has worked through VSU and is now in a financial and political position to provide excellent representation and services to Murdoch students.

The members for Swan, Fremantle and Perth are graduates of the University of Western Australia. They will be interested to know that the University of Western Australia Guild claims in the orientation handbook for this year that the guild, under VSU, `has grown into one of the biggest and most vibrant student run organisations in the country.'

Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it relates to the standing orders. Generally speaking, when a matter is actually on the blue as opposed to being introduced, as was the case in relation to the questions on which we focused, it is mere technical detail which is permitted in discussion, not a general anticipation of debate going to the principles of it. So, if you look at House of Representatives Practice , if you ask a question about the technical relationship of a particular clause to a particular problem, that is fine, but if you are going to anticipate debate—that is, the general principles underlying it—you are way out of order. I would submit that the minister is not discussing the technical details associated with it. If House of Representatives Practice is to mean anything at all, the bloke is way out of order.

Mr Hardgrave —Mr Speaker, on that point of order: the blue quite simply has the matter relating to family assistance, which you ruled on earlier, listed higher up than the higher education matter, which is at the very end of the blue. I would suspect that this is more mischief making than any other great contribution to the debate.

Mr McMullan —I refer to page 473 of House of Representatives Practice , which says:

. . . Ministers have been directed to keep away from specific provisions of, or not to canvass, legislation to come before the House later in the day.

This is a classic case of that. Those tax bills are not to come before the House later in the day but this bill is, unless he is going to withdraw it, about which we would be very pleased.

Mr SPEAKER —It clearly is inappropriate for the minister to deal with matters that directly relate to the bill before the House. I would ask him, therefore, to confine his answer to the question without directly relating to the bill before the House.

Dr KEMP —I am, of course, just dealing with the broad principles of policy in this area.

Opposition members interjecting—

Dr KEMP —The member for Canning, who I know has an interest in this area, will be interested to hear that her alma mater, Curtin University, has a variety of student services to offer students—

Mr Lee —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is defying your ruling in seeking to debate the general principles behind the bill.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Dobell will resume his seat. I am listening closely to what the minister has to say.

Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker—

Mrs Crosio —You haven't been called.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Prospect. I call the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.

Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to standing orders 144 and 145. Standing order 144, which everybody is quoting on the other side, relates to the question, not the answer. The only standing order regarding the answer is standing order 145, which says `an answer shall be relevant to the question'. There is no debate on what the minister has to say.

Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, on that point of order: the House of Representatives Practice reference which was referred to by the Manager of Opposition Business precisely referred to ministerial answers, and it is the ministerial answers which anticipate debate, and the minister is anticipating it big time here today.

Mr SPEAKER —The House would do well to remember that the blue is not the official document of the House, but the Notice Paper is. The issue is of course on the Notice Paper , as are a number of other issues on which questions have been allowed now and in the past. For that reason, I have allowed the question to stand and will allow the minister to answer but do not expect him to directly address the legislation. I call the minister.

Dr KEMP —The Curtin University, operating under the VSU regime, offers a wide range of services to students on that campus. These services include catering, university policy assistance and student finances, student advocacy, study skills, legal advice, tax service, accident insurance, tertiary sports, a share house register and I could go on and on. What this demonstrates is that under VSU a very wide range of student services is available to the—

Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the page of the House of Representatives Practice from which I quoted referred specifically to the fact that ministers should not canvass legislation. Every word the minister has said since your ruling has canvassed the legislation. Every word. Every word is in blatant defiance of your ruling, is out of order and is in breach of all precedent.

Mr SPEAKER —If any comment the minister made had been in defiance of my ruling, he would have resumed his seat much earlier. To date, I have heard him giving an illustration of a particular university and I see nothing inconsistent with that illustration and the standing order. I call the minister.

Dr KEMP —Mr Speaker, there is a reason, I think, for the sensitivity that we are seeing on the other side of the House. The question asked me whether I was aware of the attitudes of the leaders of student unions under the compulsory unionism regime. I am aware—

Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: how can the minister refer to voluntary student unionism and compulsory student unionism without canvassing legislation which is about the introduction of voluntary student unionism? How is that possible?

Mr SPEAKER —The ruling given by the chair is entirely consistent with the ruling given when questions on tax were asked, and they were answered as they are being an swered relative to this issue of voluntary student unionism. I call the minister.

Dr KEMP —A case study has been drawn to my attention in the book called Beazley by Peter Fitzsimons, who describes the actions of the Leader of the Opposition when he was the student guild president of the University of Western Australia. In this book, Peter Fitzsimons says:

Early in his term . . . he decided that the guild would have to increase its annual subscription fees in order to meet its budget, and be able to fund some of the campaign promises that Kim, for one, had gained power on.

He was for high taxes then as he is now. Peter Fitzsimons goes on to say:

There was a predictable outcry from a number of students who simply did not want their own tight budgets to be stretched any further. Too bad.

That is how Peter Fitzsimons describes the Leader of the Opposition's attitude—`too bad'. But it gets worse because, in this book, Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, justifies his attitude and he explains to Peter Fitzsimons:

I had to manoeuvre to get the people in sports councils to come in and back that . . . to make sure they got enough money out of it so they would be prepared to go and vote for us. I thought it quite justifiable.

There you have it. There is a basic difference in values between this side of the House and the opposition because the opposition believes—

Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: even on the most generous interpretation of your words, he is coming back to talking about the bill that he is urging us to pass. This is the reason why he is saying it. Even if he gets to the fact that I happened to be a fairly effective student politician, it is still not within the standing orders.

Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Whatever it takes. You should be ashamed to put your face at the box.

Mr SPEAKER —It would be self-evident to the House—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr Bevis —Why is there that space around you, Bronwyn?

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The member for McMillan. The member for Brisbane.

Mr Bevis —Why has everyone left you?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Brisbane and the Minister for Aged Care. It would be self-evident to the House that the chair has been following—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Is that a coded message?

Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Aged Care is warned.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The member for the Northern Territory is also warned. When the House has come to order, we will resume question time. It would be self-evident to the House that the chair has been listening closely to what the minister had to say to make sure that he did not transgress the standing orders. I gather that he was in fact completing his answer. I call the minister.

Dr KEMP —What this quotation from the Leader of the Opposition illustrates is that there is a complete difference of values between this side of the House and the other side of the chamber. On that side of the chamber, they believe it is appropriate to compulsorily take students' money to serve their narrow political ends; whereas on this side of the chamber, we believe that student unions should be responsible to students and not the other way around.