Mr BARRESI (7:29 PM) —Every business takes a risk when expanding its traditional core business to other areas. Australia Post has in recent years introduced many different services and products. For the most part, these extra services and products have met with the approval of the public. Australia Post's core business is to deliver first-class mail and also household or unaddressed mail referred to by many, somewhat disparagingly, as junk mail. Members of parliament and political parties regularly use this service as an inexpensive method of distributing electorate news and other community information.

Australia Post is keen to retain this business and has negotiated a special rate with the political parties. It has assigned staff to do a parliamentarian's household mail, which must be prebooked in advance depending on the locations and amount of current business activity. The charge for delivery of these unaddressed items is deducted from the account that each member of parliament holds at Australia Post. I recall that early last year my office missed an Australia Post deadline because of what seemed an unreasonable lead time required by Australia Post. Because of this inconvenience and because of numerous reports we received from constituents who did not receive information from Treasury on tax reform or who found a number of copies strewn on their front lawn or in the street, we decided to try an alternative provider for unaddressed mail. We continued that tack during the campaign, using Australia Post only when necessary and keeping within the preordained budget guidelines.

After the election, my office went through no end of trouble trying to reconcile mailing statements from Australia Post with our records. In one instance, a mail-out cost nearly $18,000, discounted down to around $14,000. Australia Post added the two figures together and charged us $32,000. After we sorted that one out, we were informed by the Department of Finance and Administration that we still owed Australia Post a sizeable amount of money. Only after persistent checks by my office did it emerge that every cent of this deficit had been billed against my account in error. After further checking, it came to light that someone else had used the service, the cost of which was charged to my account—an account financed by the public, as is the case for all MPs.

It transpires further that it was the Australian Labor Party who had their campaign mail-outs billed to my account. This was no bookkeeping error: 161,503 pieces of mail on six different invoices with a total cost of $14,610.19 was charged to my account for Labor Party campaign mail. Those Labor mail-outs included unaddressed mail from my opponent, a union official with the CPSU—the same union that claims to represent postal employees. It would appear also that some of the direct mail charged to my office may have emanated from the office of the Labor member for Mitcham in the state parliament, Tony Robinson—a mail-out which claimed no taxpayer funds were used. Given that Australia Post requires booking and authorisation for unaddressed mail and an Australia Post account card for direct mail, I am puzzled as to how this happened. Each of us makes mistakes, but it is beyond the pale to believe that Australia Post made the same mistake on six separate occasions in the space of a few weeks.

Australia Post promised on 11 February that an explanation would be sent within a week. So far—nearly seven weeks later—the explanation has not been forthcoming. There are some serious questions that need to be answered here. Did the Labor Party campaign, its candidate in Deakin or other people representing the ALP use my account in booking or sending unaddressed mail? Did the Labor Party campaign in Deakin, its candidate in Deakin, with or without the cooperation of any of its elected representatives in the Victorian parliament, use my account in booking or sending an addressed mail campaign piece under the signature of the member for Mitcham? Did any Australia Post employee conspire in the commission of this apparent fraud on behalf of their union brother, the ALP candidate for Deakin? Finally, has the accounting department and other employees of Australia Post merely shown incredible incompetence on six separate occasions? I have referred the matter to the appropriate minister for investigation. I trust there is a logical and legal explanation. I know that the ALP would demand nothing less, as they have in the past where our side is concerned.