Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (5:17 PM) —Uncharacteristically, I would like initially to make a number of remarks about the federal election and, more particularly, the electorate of Reid. Part of the reason is the rather exotic coalition candidate who was supplied for my seat, Mr Irfan Yusuf. He did, of course, make a major contribution to public debate in this country when he conceded, in the Financial Review, that the coalition had used racism in the last general election. That was a very telling remark by the Liberal candidate in that very authoritative journal. However, I think that other characteristics of the campaign were somewhat disturbing. His last-minute enrolment at an Islamic owned prayer room in the last week before the election was such that the local council said that the purported address of the Liberal candidate was a property that could not be used for residential purposes. Fortunately for Mr Yusuf, as a lawyer, he must have some awareness of electoral laws and he would know that candidates' addresses, no matter how dubious, cannot be challenged during the election period.

So we had this candidate moving into the electorate, enrolling in the Islamic prayer centre in the last weeks of the campaign and subsequently bemoaning the `racist' campaign of his own party during the campaign. But he really did not do much for multiculturalism and ethnic understanding in this country when he walked down the streets of Auburn inspecting the various food outlets and claiming which ones were more authoritative with regard to the halal meat issue. He was complaining in the Sydney Morning Herald that some of the local Turkish food outlets were not utilising halal meat. This was another spectacular part of the local Liberal campaign.

I turn to the question of the actual result. Whereas in 1998 the seat of Reid had the largest state-wide swing to the Labor Party, in this election it had a worse than average situation. I want to raise the question of the informal vote and the continuing conflict between state and federal electoral laws in this country. The growth of the informal vote in Reid from 7.1 per cent to 11.1 per cent is statistically of interest. In the adjacent seat of Blaxland the vote went from 5.5 per cent to 9.8 per cent. In other words, in both of these seats—

Mr Cadman —They didn't want to vote for either party. They stayed at home.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Alan, you could actually learn something about informal voting in this debate. In both those seats the informal vote grew by four per cent. If you compare that with other seats in the adjacent areas, you will find that Prospect had 2.5 per cent growth, Lowe had 1.2 per cent and Parramatta had 1.4 per cent. The reason for that—and this is very informative for you, Alan—was the fact that just before election day a by-election occurred in the Auburn state seat, which is shared by Blaxland and Reid. The situation in New South Wales is that a No. 1 vote is a formal vote in state elections. So we had a party out there—the Labor party in this case—campaigning that voters in the by-election only had to vote No. 1. Weeks later, they are facing a federal poll with totally different electoral requirements. I think this is an indication of the need for some kind of sense in this country that people are being asked vote in two different electoral systems.

Mr Cadman —The state's wrong.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Whoever is wrong, it does show a problem. This election, quite clearly, was fundamentally fought around the question of New York, the Tampa and border protection. We have seen since the election a fairly extensive expose of the degree to which the government colluded in attempting to utilise immigration policy for racist purposes—or, more specifically, for religiously biased purposes. The coalition was attempting to utilise a fundamental hostility to Muslims in this country, to try to indicate to the Australian public that: `We, the current government, are not going to let these Muslims into the country.' There was code language, there were subterranean kinds of messages, but clearly the government wanted to tell the Australian public that they were going to stop Muslim people coming to this country.

Mr Cadman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —The particular area that they tried to do this in was in the area of—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran)—The point of order.

Mr Cadman —Listen, if you want to get into a slanging match and a racist debate, you are going the right way—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is your point of order?

Mr Cadman —I take objection to the words that this member is using to describe members of the coalition. I think that it is inappropriate and wrong.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order at this point.

Mr Cadman —He is making accusations of racial and religious bigotry in the election campaign.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Thank you. I take your point of order. There is no point of order at this point.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —It is quite appropriate that the interjector is the member for Mitchell. In a debate a day or so ago, he refused to publicly support the government's policy in regard to dual citizenship. He went into the House condemning the government's intention of getting rid of dual citizenship. I think that shows the kind of instinctive feel that he has on these issues of multiculturalism. The situation was that the government realised that—particularly amongst the Middle Eastern and eastern European communities, where the religious divide is quite hard—a message that might imply that the vast majority of the people coming to this country were of a particular faith would tell very strongly in certain electorates. We had the now retired minister Mr Reith saying on the public record that we should have some concerns that terrorists were coming—

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —He did say this, Alan. Member for Mitchell, he did actually say that we should have some concern that terrorists might be coming into this country. That was clearly another message of fear in the electorate: `Be concerned that none of these people can be genuine claimants, be concerned that they are terrorists, be concerned that they are different,' et cetera. We have seen since the election an indication that the then minister indicated to the Prime Minister well before the National Press Club and well before Lateline that he, the minister, had doubts—that the armed forces of this country had doubts—about the legitimacy of government claims with regard to those photographs. As I say, what we are seeing is a clear attempt to manipulate immigration policy around public concerns in a period of passion and emotion, post New York, to try and construe to the public that immigration policy was designed to keep certain people out. In regard to immigration, the government's address-in-reply—

Mr Cadman —Madam Deputy Speaker, again, I have a point of order. I want him to withdraw that. I think that is unbelievable. We have both got a policy of non-discrimination. You know that—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have heard the point of order.

Mr Cadman —You know what has gone on this chamber and in the Australian nation in regard to a non-discriminatory policy. I want that withdrawn.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the member for Mitchell to resume his seat. There is no point of order. I am listening carefully to what the honourable member for Reid has to say. There is no point of order at this point.

Mr Cadman —It is a point of order. I am offended by these remarks and I want them withdrawn.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —You are even opposed to dual citizenship, despite the government's policy.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Reid to address his remarks through the chair.

Mr Cadman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order again. I am offended by these remarks and I want them withdrawn. If I am offended, it is your responsibility to make him withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask you to resume your seat. I have made my decision. The honourable member for Reid.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Your expertise in time wasting is acknowledged, but please.

Mr Cadman —I think we will take this down to the chamber. I object to those words and I want them withdrawn.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Madam Deputy Speaker, the government's address-in-reply refers to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member of Reid to resume his seat.

Ms Worth —Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to try to assist the chamber. It is not so much a point of order, but if any member here takes exception and feels offence at what has been said then I think it is a reasonable request to ask the speaker to withdraw. And I think that, in the spirit of there being less drama in the Main Committee than there is in the other chamber, that would be an appropriate course of action today.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank you for your assistance. I will listen very carefully. At this stage of the game, the language is not offensive yet. I warn the member for Reid to be circumspect.

Mr Cadman —Oh, come on!

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Please, get him under control.

Mr Cadman —I find his words offensive. I am asking you to ask him to withdraw them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the member for Reid to resume his seat. I have made my ruling. The member for Reid.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —I take it on board. The address-in-reply refers to the government's strong emphasis on attracting people with skills—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The minister for Reid will resume his seat.

Mr Cadman —I am sorry. I object to those words and I want them withdrawn.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am running this place.

Mr Cadman —I object to those words and I find them offensive, as many people have found words like that offensive.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would you let me know what the words are that you find offensive?

Mr Cadman —The fact that he said our policy is based on racial discrimination and religious bigotry. He is nodding; he used those words.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask you to resume your seat.

Mr Randall —He said we tried to stop Muslims coming into this country.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Reid.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —As I was saying, the address-in-reply refers to the government's strong emphasis on attracting people with skills and says that Australia is `one of the few nations in the world to maintain a refugee program'. I want to turn to one other aspect in regard to the question—

Mr Cadman —No, I am sorry, not on this issue. He has branded the coalition as racist and said it used discriminatory policies in the election campaign. He knows that is wrong and he should not be raising this race issue. That is one of the issues that we do not go near in the parliament. All he has got to do is say, `I withdraw,' and things will be settled. I will keep this up.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —A number of rulings have been made. On four or five occasions, the gentleman opposite has refused to accept your rulings and, really, I know it is a bit of time wasting but I do not know how long we have to put up with this.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —My ruling is that at this stage of the game it is not the most offensive language we have ever heard in this place. I take your point that you are offended. I do not regard those words as offensive at this stage. I ask you to—

Mr Cadman —It is not a matter of what you regard as offensive. I do!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —My understanding is that it is. Standing order 78 says that the Speaker shall determine whether or not the words are offensive.

Mr Cadman —They are offensive and I want them withdrawn.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have ruled that they are not offensive at this point.

Mr Cadman —I am not reflecting on the chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if I find these comments offensive I am appealing to you to assist me—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You have appealed.

Mr Cadman —by not putting your own interpretation on them but to assist me by saying to the member opposite that the member finds these words offensive and requires them to be withdrawn. All he has to do is withdraw them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand your point. I do not agree with you. I have asked the member for Reid to be more careful with his words and he has agreed to do that. I ask the honourable member for Reid to continue.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Absolutely. I was going to say that one of the other things that—

Mr Cadman —I am sorry. I am not going to accept that and maybe we need to take some advice. All the speaker needs to do, in a circumstance such as this, is to say, `My colleague finds it offensive. I will withdraw the remarks he finds offensive,' and go on with it.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Only from the point of view of stopping disruption, I withdraw any words that the member for Mitchell finds offensive.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the member for Reid and the member for Mitchell to resume their seats while I take some advice. On a point of clarification: member for Reid, I understand you have already offered to withdraw those words?

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Absolutely.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Thank you.

Mr Cadman —Thank you.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —But not my criticism of government policy. I want to turn very briefly to the question of the refugee intake in this country. One thing that concerns me is that the government's changes with regard to parent and spouse migration are forcing a significant number of my electors to attempt to bring in family within the refugee humanitarian intake. An example would be the question of spouses. Traditionally, only a small proportion of spouses were asked to provide assurance of support. But what is happening now—and even the member for Mitchell, I gather, has some knowledge of this—is that virtually all spouses are being asked to provide assurance of support.

The impact of that is that a significant number of people from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran et cetera—the main countries from where we accept refugees on a humanitarian basis—are now forced to bring in families within that category. This impacts very strongly on the waiting times at overseas posts such as Islamabad and New Delhi. We have more people trying to get in the refugee humanitarian intake for family reasons who otherwise would have been coming under other categories.

Similarly, with regard to the government's policy on aged parents, the waiting list—from recollection—is approximately 14,000. An intake of 500 per year would mean that, in theory—if they do not die off—they would be waiting for 28 years. Obviously, significant numbers—because they have to be over 60 and 65 respectively—are deceased by the time they might be processed. The government has attempted to negotiate with the opposition to bring in a program whereby people who pay $50,000 would get preferential admission; and the others would get access to more than 500 visas. What concerns me is the impact this is having on our refugee humanitarian program. Also, unfortunately, it is driving or encouraging significant numbers of people to try to come here by boat. If people are waiting, as they are in New Delhi, for 2¼ or 2½ years—and this includes people's spouses and people's parents—what is going to be the result? People are going to attempt to come here by boat, because they see no other options, and once again they will join the waiting list and be forced to seek alternative means.

Also with regard to skills, the government is really facilitating a further deregulation of the labour market through immigration. It is attempting to play to one part of the market as being tough on refugees, ruthless and driving down the number of these claimants, but we are seeing left field an attempt to deregulate the labour market by increased use of two- and four-year work permits. We have the most outrageous example down at the Hindu temple near Wollongong, where people were basically locked up permanently, paid piddling wages—and were basically under house arrest. That is the most extreme example of what is going on. But, in a wider sense, the government is facilitating wider access for significant numbers of people to come here for longer periods and to take Australian jobs.

I also want to turn to the recent statement by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. He actually boasted that 90 per cent of claimants who had undertaken studies in this country and had launched post-graduation claims for residency were succeeding. I question whether, whilst we are attempting to gain people with skills, we should facilitate that easily every person who purports to come here to do studies being given such an easy access to permanent residence. For a government that professes to be hardline—both of these policies facilitate proliferation of temporary work visa entry and people being able to immediately launch residence claims after graduation—these are questionable policies, but that is essentially what the government are doing. They are attempting to purvey an image that they have no truck with poverty-stricken, refugee asylum claimants, that they are tough and ruthless in this regard, but at the same time they are playing to a very different market. That situation is of concern.

Very briefly, another question we have had in the last week concerns the outrageous conduct of the previous Minister for Health and Aged Care. We have a situation where money is diverted from asthma and rural and regional health programs towards a building in Canberra. In representing the region that I do, I know that a number of documents have been written with regard to the connection between the socioeconomic situation, demography and health, and that asthma has been known to be particularly prevalent in Western Sydney. I feel, on behalf of my constituents, some concern that this kind of money is diverted by a man who subsequently, probably by accident, gained employment with that organisation—just coincidence, an accident et cetera. Regardless of whether it was a mistake, the electorate has some concern. Similarly, the government managed to roll over $10 million for one measure with regard to suicide and another $24 million. They managed to roll that over, but they could not do it in this case.

In the United States, if this man were not in jail, he certainly would be under investigation, as would advisers. It is overdue for this country to have laws with regard to people getting out of this parliament, getting out of public administration, and soon after finding themselves in the employment of groups that they have previously dealt with as lobbyists in their portfolio. Obviously, the AMA has made some very worthwhile comments.

I would, however, briefly refer to the member for Parramatta. Once again, he is caught missing. They sent him on to the Sunrise program. He said that he was calm and relaxed about the issue; he said it was a storm in a teacup; he said there were interesting suggestions that politicians who left office should be subject to a cooling-off period. Unfortunately, once again, a few moments later, he was repudiated by the government. The Prime Minister has come out and said the government might have to take the money away. It is not a storm in a teacup. (Time expired)