Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Order In The House -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) God! Not brave. I think it's very brave. or an arts group. Go work for a charity Piss off! Or a sheltered workshop. Stay where you are. That's getting you in trouble. Well, I'm very excited. Exciting, isn't it? And I'm glad you're excited. over you. I've stood up to lots of pressure to tell you what I think - And I'm stupid enough with no bullshit, like always. at political opportunism. It's an attempt and we'll have you on toast. I'd call it political realism You don't ask much, do you? After a year of working on this, Point Paradise thing I cannot let this just fade away into a puff of smoke. I can't, mate, I can't. don't do it, don't do it. I've said it before - one-man band - that's all I'm... Be very, very careful, www.auscap.com.au Australian Caption Centre Copyright 2000 Supertext Captions Miranda Roberts Edited by: Scot Rawlings Captioned by: Ming Chong

This program is not subtitled Welcome to: in Federal Parliament. A review of the week's business reveal your government's plan Prime Minister, doesn't this document of working Australians? to force WorkChoices on 100% anything of the kind. It doesn't prove people can actually have choice. What our policy demonstrates is that ring on a Saturday morning, The next time you hear your doorbell don't answer the door elder Dean Mighell because it could well be unionists. of the church of latter day his own code of conduct Didn't the Prime Minister breach to the Liberal Party by gifting Kirribilli for a fundraising function? Julia Gillard used a leaked document With Kevin Rudd absent on Monday,

over its future workplace plans. to pressure the government My question is to the Prime Minister. for the percentage Does the government have a target of the Australian workforce workplace agreements? to be covered by Australian does the government have a plan Specifically, funding agreements to use the federal-state healthcare workplace agreements to force the offering of Australian to Australia's 250,000 nurses? The honourable the Prime Minister. I am not aware of that. and I am informed I do not have a target and Workplace Relations by both my Minister for Employment

that there is no such target. and my Minister for Health and Ageing in early May Prime Minister, is it not a fact that and Workplace Relations circulated the Department of Employment a request for tender for economic modelling? to economic research consultancies Will the Prime Minister confirm requests modelling that the tender documentation agreement coverage increasing from based on Australian workplace to 20 per cent of all employees"? "around 5 per cent of all employees Members on my right. Members on my right. not reveal your government's plan Prime Minister, does this document onto Australian workplace agreements? to force 1.5 million Australians The Honourable the Prime Minister.

The answer is no. Department of Employment I again refer to the and Workplace Relations request issued in early May - for tender for economic modelling presented to economic consultancies. and it is contagious - Prime Minister...

(Coughs) I've got one, thank you. reveal your government's plan Prime Minister, doesn't this document on to Australian workplace agreements to force Australians off awards and from 19 per cent to 10 per cent"? to achieve "award coverage dropping The Honourable the Prime Minister. Acting Leader of the Opposition, With the greatest of respect to the anything of the kind. it does not prove with enormous interest Can I say that I note Opposition is taking advantage that the Acting Leader of the Leader of the Opposition of the absence of the hatred of AWAs. to reinforce her visceral taking advantage... I notice that she is for Grayndler proves my point. Confected laughter from the member

when it comes to hatred of AWAs, We all know that on a scale of 10, is at about 10.5 or 11. the member for Lalor little bit of light, And every time there is a tiny on some possible, a tiny opening of the door preservation of AWAs, little, teeny-weeny bit of stock and barrel, they're going." she comes in and says: "No. Lock, I say to she who hates AWAs - No. many Labor Party conspiracies. You have been engaged in too not prove anything of the kind. You misread that document. It does to the Prime Minister. My question is again request for tender I refer again to his government's for economic modelling. reveal your government's plan Prime Minister, doesn't this document 100 per cent of working Australians - to force Work Choices on up from 85 per cent - such as nurses and firefighters meaning that 1.5 million employees extreme industrial relations laws? will be at risk under your The Honourable the Prime Minister.. very quietly through this. Let me take the deputy leader I ask her to listen very quietly. does not prove anything of the kind. Let me just point out to her that it people can have choice. What our policy demonstrates is that Labor Party is that, The difference between us and the if the Labor Party wins the election, will rule the day. collective agreements the option of AWAs. They will completely remove What we are witnessing... Member for Jagajaga! Deputy Leader of the Opposition, ..is the member for Lalor, the opportunity grabbing hold of the unexpected of speaking for the Labor Party - directed all of them to me. and she has taken every question and

is saying to the world... What she is really doing The member for Jagajaga is warned. ..that, as far as she is concerned, no backsliding on AWAs. there will be absolutely you all know who Gary Gray is - Gary Gray -

Prime Minister does - certainly the former companies in Western Australia... may be going around the mining This'll be heavy. will resume his seat. The Prime Minister of Opposition business The honourable the manager on a point of order. It is a very specific question. Standing order 104. The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was asked a fairly lengthy question. He is certainly in order. I call the Prime Minister. People like Gary Gray and others may be going around saying, "There is a way through on this, comrade," but while the leader is away in Brisbane the acting leader is taking every opportunity to nail her colours

to the anti-AWA mast. She speaks for the Australian Labor Party, she speaks for Greg Combet and she speaks for Sharan Burrow. Every question she asks is a further illustration of her visceral hatred of AWAs. I would invite the Acting Leader of the Opposition to explain to those hundreds of thousands of Australians who are far better off under AWAs... The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The honourable the member for Fraser. This question explicitly referred to the extension of Work Choices... The member will come to his point of order. It relates to relevance. This question related to the extension of Work Choices...

The member for Fraser will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was asked a question on AWAs. The Prime Minister is answering the question, and the Prime Minister is certainly in order. The honourable the leader of the House. Mr Speaker, when it comes to being out of order, first of all, we have these constant, confected points of order and the Acting Leader of the Opposition, who is constantly interjecting and holding up a document and pointing to it in ways that... The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I have already ruled on that point of order. The Prime Minister is in order.

The honourable the leader of the House. Mr Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. Is it in order for the Acting Leader of the Opposition

to constantly hold up a document and point to it? Perhaps she should table it for us. The Leader of the House would be well aware that it is not against standing orders to display documents. However, if it is done excessively, as he would be aware, I have taken action. The Prime Minister is in order. I call the Prime Minister. I resume the invitation I extended to the Acting Leader of the Opposition. Instead of reinforcing her visceral dislike of AWAs, perhaps she ought to go to Western Australia and to other parts of this country and explain to people who are thousands of dollars a year better off under AWAs why she wants to destroy their living standards. Perhaps she could explain to the many tens of thousands... The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Order. Order. The honourable member for Lilley on a point of order. On relevance. It was about nurses and firefighters. The members will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister is in order. The Prime Minister will be given a chance to answer the question. I call the Prime Minister. I invite the Acting Leader of the Opposition and I also invite the shadow Treasurer to explain to people who are on AWAs why their freedom of choice should be destroyed under a Labor government. The government hit back with its own leaked document accusing the unions of launching a dirty-tricks campaign for Kevin Rudd. A document has come into my possession, which is euphemistically entitled Federal election 2007: union political strategy manual - 6 steps. That is the description of it. The real description is this is the dirty tricks manual which is designed... Oh, the sound effects man - he knows all about dirty tracks manuals produced by the union movement.

He is right on cue - a former president of the ACTU. I wonder how many more of them we are going to hear from today. Mr Speaker, if you think I exaggerate and if you think I am being unfair to the trade union movement of Australia by calling this a dirty tracks manual, let me refer to page 46. This is a manual which is given to union activists who are going out and ringing up fellow unionists

and knocking on their doors. Can you image the poor unionist in Western Australia

who has got Kevin Reynolds knocking on his door - or Joe McDonald knocking or bashing the door down? Can you imagine how that person might feel?

But if you think I am exaggerating any of this, on page 46 the instruction is given as to how to talk to your fellow unionists. After advising the union member - that is, the person doing the talking - to totally misrepresent the intent and the operation

of the government's law, there is a request at the bottom of this instruction that says - and listen very carefully to this - After misrepresenting everything about our policy, it says: "Don't Read Out - Minimum wage, four weeks annual leave, 10 days Sick/carer's leave, 38 hour week, Unpaid parental leave." In other words, what this manual does is to exhort the union canvassers to lie about the government's policy. It warns the unions: "Don't tell the truth about our policy, don't tell the unionist that you are actually entitled to a guaranteed minimum wage, don't talk about a 38-hour week, four weeks annual leave, don't talk about sick leave or carers leave and don't talk about parental leave, because the poor unionist might actually think that's not a bad deal, so the last thing you want to do is to tell the truth about the government's policy." This document is a dirty tricks manual, and it is calculated, through techniques of misrepresentation, push polling and the like, to achieve one purpose, and that is to install the Leader of the Opposition as Prime Minister. The union movement is not interested in workers. It is interested in power for union bosses, and this document, this manual, is all about achieving that objective, and the puppet along the way is going to be the Leader of the Opposition. Get a load of this. The ACTU says that union leaders have to make phone calls as follows: "In the first call, the aim is to educate, inform and derive a profile of the member which can be used to tailor future calls. The follow-up call will use this information to raise issues that we know will concern the member. I bet you know how to concern the member when you make the follow-up call! The manual then encourages Labor apparatchiks and unionists to penetrate and use community groups for this campaign. The ACTU recommends entering homes with churches and faith groups so that they can use those groups for the industrial campaign. I would warn Australians of this - the next time you hear your doorbell ring on a Saturday morning, do not answer the door, because it could well be elder Dean Mighell of the church of latter day unionists who has come around to tell you about your rights at work. On Radio National this morning the boss of the nurses union was asked - "Will your membership be recruited as part of that marginal seat campaigning?" Jill Iliffe said, "I would imagine so." So not only do you have the midnight knock from Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald but now you have the politicisation of every hospital. In fact, the ACTU's dirty tricks manual cited as a case study what was done at Nepean Hospital in the electorate of Lindsay, and the New South Wales Nurses Association spent $1.2 million trying to secure the re-election of the Iemma government. So if the ACTU has its way, every hospital will not be a care centre -

it will be a centre for political activism. Patients will get indoctrination with their medication. Patients will be offered brainwashing

with standard health care at the bedside. No wonder the elective surgery lists are blowing out so badly in New South Wales hospitals because the nurses are all at ACTU indoctrination lessons. The Opposition accused the Prime Minister of allowing his Sydney residence, Kirribilli House, to be used for a Liberal Party fundraiser. Thanks, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Australian Public Service Commission's ministerial conversations event held in the Great Hall on 12 August 2005, which featured the Prime Minister, cost taxpayers $60,000 for two hours, including venue hire? How much did the Liberal Party pay for the hire of Kirribilli House for a similar period from the $8,250 per head charged? The Honourable the Prime Minister. I cannot confirm the cost of the Public Service event to which the member refers without getting advice, but I will get that advice and I will be happy to provide it to him. In relation to the event at Kirribilli House,

as I have indicated previously, all of the additional costs, which were in the order of $5,100... Order. Order. Yes! Yes! Yes! ..were paid by the Liberal Party. My question is to the Prime Minister. I again refer to the Liberal Party function at Kirribilli House - which included fine wine, oysters and prawns - overlooking the magnificent Sydney Harbour.

Can the Prime Minister guarantee today that the total bill of $5,100 charged to the Liberal Party from the $8,250 charged per head covers the costs of all catering, alcohol, food, security, insurance, cleaning and the hire of the venue - as is required for community organisations which hire rooms in this Parliament House? The Honourable the Prime Minister. I can confirm that the figure I have given - and the precise figure is $5,186.78 - includes all of the additional costs of the function. The food and beverage served at the function was purchased separately for the function - existing stock was not used. There was an audiovisual cost for the function, and this was billed directly to the Liberal Party. The situation is that all of the additional costs... Order! The member for Fowler is warned! Obviously any additional staff required are included in the cost, and that is a figure of $829.57. Clearly the existing staff would have been on duty and paid anyway, so that is not part of it. I know that the Labor Party find the amount involved rather low, but perhaps their lifestyle is a little more extravagant than mine. Can the Prime Minister confirm that attendees

at the Liberal Party fundraising drinks function at Kirribilli House on Friday, 1 June 2007 were met by people wearing badges from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? Order. Order. The member for Dobell is warned! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. How many people from the Prime Minister's department were at the function, and what were their roles? The Honourable the Prime Minister. I am informed that the people attending the function -

it was not a Liberal Party fundraising function - were met by members of my staff wearing a badge with "Prime Minister's staff" on the badge. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the price charged

for the Liberal Party fundraising function at Kirribilli is based on the same pricing principles that apply to community groups hiring the Great Hall here in Parliament House? Will the Prime Minister now table the full costings billed to the Liberal Party for the 1 June fundraiser at Kirribilli? The Honourable the Prime Minister. It was not a fundraiser, and you know that. Let me very simply tell you why - the amount of up to $8,000 was a fee charged to business observers for attending the federal council of the Liberal Party, which I am told is approximately the same as the top charge made for the Labor Party federal conference. Of course you did not. This demonstrates that the basis of your claim is completely wrong. The member for Grayndler is warned. I have indicated that the costs are $5,186.78 - that is, food $2,128.50, beverages $1,476.52, casual staff $829.57 and hire charges $752.19,

making a total of $5,186.78. Every last cent of that was paid for by the Liberal Party of Australia. Questions without notice. Senator McEwen. My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Prime Minister.

I refer the minister to his answer yesterday where he said that the Liberal Party paid $2,128.50 for food and $1,476.52 for drinks

for the fundraiser held at Kirribilli House on 1 June 2007. Does the minister know of anywhere else in Australia where you can entertain 225 people and feed them oysters, prawns, so-called posh soup and other gourmet food for $9.50 a head and give them all the fine wine they can drink for $6.50 a head? Can the minister explain why the Prime Minister thinks the Liberal Party is entitled to such a good deal?

Why should ordinary Australian taxpayers subsidise a Liberal Party fundraiser? Order. The Leader of the Government, Senator Minchin. Senator McEwen seems to be reading from a press release of Senator Wong's on this subject. Senator Wong issued a press release saying, "There's something fishy about Howard's oysters" - very droll, Senator Wong! What I think is actually fishy, through you, Mr President, to Senator McEwen, is the behaviour of the South Australian Labor Party

in dumping Senator Wong to the No. 2 position and dumping Senator Kirk right off the ticket to put a union hack called Don Farrell, a failed Labor candidate from 1988, into the No. 1 position on the Senate ticket. That is what is very fishy, Senator McEwen. As to your question about... Order. ..functions at the Lodge. Order. Come to order. Order, Senator MacDonald. Order. Mr President, I am no expert on catering costs, but apparently Senator McEwen and Senator Wong are. They can assert that the $5,186.69 charged to the Liberal Party for the function at Kirribilli House was apparently not the right amount to charge. Now, I do not know what information or what expertise they have in commercial catering costs. All I can do is report to the Senate, as I did yesterday, that this was the cost of the food and the beverages for the supply of Liberal Party delegates and observers at Kirribilli House. That is what was charged to Kirribilli House and that is what has been on-costed to the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party has paid the amount in full.

Can the Prime Minister identify one other venue in Australia - let alone one with the spectacular harbour views from Kirribilli - where one can entertain 225 people and feed them oysters, prawns and other gourmet food for less than $10 a head? Is the Prime Minister aware that the cocktail food menu at St George Leagues Club for an equivalent function of two hours is good value at $22 a head?

Prime Minister, when are you going to come clean on the real cost of your taxpayer-funded function at Kirribilli? The member for Mackellar on a point of order.. Mr Speaker, I rose to make this point of order. Order. Order. Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. When a member has the call, the member will be heard. I will take action. The honourable member for Mackellar. I rose to raise my point of order, whilst the question was halfway through, to point out that a question... Order! The member for Melbourne Ports is warned! MEMBER: Is that the Shroud of Turin? LAUGHTER The member for Reid is warned! Order. The honourable the Leader of the House. Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard from members opposite a reference to the Shroud of Turin. We really should not have that kind of behaviour in the House, especially from this Opposition leader's Opposition. I think that reference should be withdrawn and apologised for. Order. Order. The Leader of the House has raised a point. I note the concern he raises, but I do not believe that that is unparliamentary language. The honourable member for Mackellar will be heard. I rose to make the point of order that the question being asked by the member opposite had a long preface, which is against the standing orders. I rose part way through the question, which I note he has now completed, to make that point of order. For the future, it has become the practice of the opposition to use long prefaces to questions, which are quite out of order. I listened carefully to the question. The question was in order. I call the Prime Minister. In answer to the question, I repeat the answer that I gave yesterday - all the additional costs of this function have been borne by the Liberal Party. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Liberal Party's fundraising function at Kirribilli on 1 June. Order. Order. Order. The member has the call.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that he gifted his Kirribilli House staff and the venue to the Liberal Party for the duration of the function? The Honourable the Prime Minister. The premise of the question is wrong. It was not a Liberal Party fundraising function. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer to the previous question on the Kirribilli function for business observers paying to attend the Liberal Party Federal Council when the Prime Minister said,

"It was not a Liberal Party fundraising function." If the Kirribilli function was not a fundraiser for the Liberal Party, why is $5,100 repayment being sought from the Liberal Party? The Honourable the Prime Minister. For the very good reason that other people attending the function

were delegates to the federal council meeting. Will the Prime Minister confirm that no repayment has been sought from the Liberal Party for the costs incurred in hosting the business observers from the Liberal Party Federal Council who attended the welcome reception at Kirribilli House? The Honourable the Prime Minister. The arrangement which was confirmed by my department as being appropriate was simply this - provided we are not a fundraising event and provided the costs of the function, as assessed by my department, were borne by the Liberal Party, it would be in order for those who attended to attend. Is the Prime Minister aware that, under section 287 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, services provided for less than full price and gifts of services or products

are all considered as political donations?

Given that there was no venue hire charge for the Liberal Party's use of Kirribilli House, can the Prime Minister confirm whether the taxpayer has in effect donated the value of holding a function at Kirribilli to the Liberal Party?

Further, will the Prime Minister ensure that there is an appropriate declaration made for the use of Kirribilli House in order to ensure there is no breach of the Commonwealth electoral law? The Honourable the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition is asking me for a legal opinion. He is - he is asking for a legal opinion. That may or may not be in order, but let me offer the view that there has been no breach of the Electoral Act. But, as always, I will take advice. I refer the Prime Minister to section 5 of his own ministerial code of conduct, which provides that, "Official facilities should be used for official purposes." Is the Prime Minister aware that his code also provides that ministers must never abuse the privileges which undoubtedly are attached to ministerial office? Didn't the Prime Minister breach his own code of conduct by gifting Kirribilli to the Liberal Party for a fund raising function? The Honourable the Prime Minister. The answer is no, because the allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. It was not gifted to the Liberal Party. It was hospitality provided by me on conditions and in circumstances advised by my department as being entirely appropriate. Order! The member for Jagajaga. Does the Prime Minister agree that Kirribilli House is owned by the Australian people? Does he also agree that Kirribilli House should not be gifted to any institution like the Liberal Party

for fundraising purposes in part or in whole? Order! In calling the Prime Minister, I think the first part of that question was asking for an opinion, but the Prime Minister may choose to answer. HOWARD: I beg your pardon. I think the first part of that question was asking for an opinion. I am more than happy to answer it, Mr Speaker.

Of course, Kirribilli House is a national asset. It does not belong to me, it did not belong to Bob Hawke, it did not belong to Paul Keating, or, indeed, to any of my predecessors. I repudiate completely the suggestion that it was gifted to the Liberal Party for a fundraiser.

That is factually incorrect. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the questions I asked in the parliament yesterday concerning the use of Kirribilli for a fundraising venue for the Liberal Party. Can the Prime Minister confirm that on 24 June 2005 he used his official Canberra residence, the Lodge, for a similar function for business observers for the 2005 Liberal Party Federal Council meeting,

each of whom had paid $7,500 to the Liberal Party? The Honourable the Prime Minister. Yes, I can confirm that, and the circumstances in which that took place, including the Liberal Party picking up the full additional costs, were actually the same - exactly the same. Prime Minister, how much money did the Liberal Party pay to the Commonwealth for the use of the Lodge on 24 June 2005? When was that payment made and how much of that payment was for the use of the Lodge as a venue? The Honourable the Prime Minister. Order. The member for Lindsay. The Liberal Party did not use the Lodge or Kirribilli House. None of these events were fundraising events. In no way was either of the premises made available to the Liberal Party. The people attending these events were attending as my guests, and I believe it was appropriate that there be a reimbursement

for the additional costs over and above the normal costs associated with the operation of the premises. The honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

Thanks, Mr Speaker. Prime Minister, how much money did the Liberal Party pay to the Commonwealth for the use of the Lodge on 24 June 2005, and when was that payment made? The Honourable the Prime Minister. Order. Order. The Prime Minister has the call. I will seek advice on that and I will give it to you. I am asked about a claim that was made in 2005. I do not recall the precise amount. All I can inform the Leader of the Opposition of is that the arrangement that I described obtained then. The same advice was tendered to the government in relation to that matter. MEMBER: How much? The member for Jagajaga is warned! I will find out and I will tell the House. Okay? Will the Prime Minister agree to give that detail to the parliament by the end of question time? Will the Prime Minister also inform the parliament on how many other occasions the Prime Minister has used the Lodge or Kirribilli for direct or indirect fundraising purposes

for the Liberal Party? The Honourable the Prime Minister. I can answer the second part of the question now by saying that neither of those residences has been used for Liberal Party fundraisers.

As to the other information, I will make that information available to the parliament and the public when it is available to me, and that will not be before the end of question time. My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer to my previous question on Kirribilli and the Lodge, their use for fundraising purposes by the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister's answer that neither residence had been used for Liberal Party fundraising. If that is so, why did the Prime Minister say the following just before question time? Question - "The nub of this - it is fundraising, isn't it?" Answer from Howard - "Yes. But, well, it is that and, well, sometimes gatherings of that type that I have eluded to, you know, might in a remote way be associated with fundraising." Prime Minister, will you confirm finally the fact which stares the entire country in the face that both these events at Kirribilli and the Lodge were fundraisers for the Liberal Party, pure and simple? Order. The Honourable the Prime Minister. The answer is they were not,

and the attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to distort something I said at a news conference into a contradiction is absolutely baseless, and I reject it. I refer to the statement by the Australian Electoral Commission director for funding and disclosure, Mr Kevin Bodel, that the Prime Minister's gift of the use of Kirribilli to the Liberal Party does appear to be a gift in kind. I also refer to Mr Bodel's subsequent statement, in which he said - "Basically, I've now been told to shut up."

Prime Minister, did any minister or any ministerial adviser contact the AEC yesterday on this matter? What did they say to the AEC? Prime Minister, why did the government seek to intimidate the AEC, Australia's independent election watchdog? the Prime Minister. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. Perhaps I can best answer it by reading a media statement released today

by the Australian Electoral Commission.

MEMBER: Who wrote their lines? Oh, I see. We do not have an independent Electoral Commission anymore. This is what the statement says - The AEC announced today it is examining if any potential disclosure obligation exists under the Commonwealth Electoral Act in relation to a function hosted by the Prime Minister at Kirribilli House. The AEC has noted suggestions that the Government may have attempted to 'silence' or constrain the AEC responses to the media on this issue. 'The AEC takes its integrity and independence very seriously and I want to make it quite clear that no attempt was made by the Government or anybody else to influence the AEC in its response to this issue,' Electoral Commissioner, Mr Ian Campbell said. 'Contrary to some media reports, the AEC Director of Funding and Disclosure, Mr Kevin Bodel was not asked by the AEC or the Government to shut up regarding these matters.' The release goes on to say - The AEC also confirmed today that it will examine a complaint by the federal Special Minister of State regarding the use of electoral roll information in connection with the ACTU and whether this may or may not be in accordance with the Commonwealth Electoral Act." My question, again, is to the Prime Minister.

I refer the Prime Minister to his claim yesterday that the Kirribilli function was no more than "hospitality provided by me". Does the Prime Minister recognise that Kirribilli is not his house and that it belongs to the Australian people, or does he agree with the member for O'Connor's statement today...

Order. Order. Order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The member for Mackellar on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite have asked this question again and again... The member will resume her seat. The member will resume her seat. I am listening carefully to the leader's question. He has not completed his question. I call the Leader of the Opposition. I refer the Prime Minister to his claim yesterday that the Kirribilli function was no more than "hospitality provided by me". Does he recognise that Kirribilli is not his house and that it belongs to the Australian people, or does he agree with the statement made today by the member for O'Connor "It's his house and we say it's his house." Prime Minister, don't the Australian people deserve something better than a Prime Minister and a government who now regard the national estate as purely a fundraising vehicle for the Liberal Party? The member will resume his seat. Order. Order. Before I call the Prime Minister. I indicate that the Leader of the Opposition would be well aware that he should not debate questions. He would also be aware that the Prime Minister is not required to comment on statements made by backbenchers. On that basis I call the Prime Minister. I am very happy to answer the question. I do not regard Kirribilli House and I do not regard the Lodge as my house. I recognise that I am greatly privileged to occupy both of those residences at the present time because I happen to be Prime Minister of this country. I know that my predecessors - or most of them - would have adopted the same attitude. But seeing that the Leader of the Opposition has persisted with this falsehood that the function held last Friday week was a fundraiser for the Liberal Party - which it was not - perhaps I might draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to a memorable paragraph in a book

entitled 'The Fixer' which is the untold Graham Richardson, written by Marian Wilkinson,

who is hardly a journalistic promoter of John Howard, to put it mildly. I think she almost competes David Marr - no, not quite - as somebody who uncharitable to the current Prime Minister. This particular book describes, on pages 262 and 263, an event that took place at Kirribilli House in winter of 1987. As I remember, in the winter of 1987, Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister

and I was the Leader of the Opposition. So I remember the winter of 1987 extremely well. It was a winter of some discontent for the Liberal Party of Australia and, in political terms, a winter of some comfort for the Australian Labor Party. The book spoke of a gathering at Kirribilli House in these terms - "The guest list for the night, if not secret, was certainly handled discreetly. The invitees were coming to Kirribilli House for what was, in reality, an exclusive fund-raising dinner."

Let me read on, because I can assure you that it gets infinitely better than that, Mr Speaker. It goes on to say - "Among the millionaires... The Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The member for Melbourne is warned! The member for Adelaide. We don't like 1987, do we! Even though they won that year, we do not like the uncomfortable reminder of their own hypocrisy. on the guest list was also Graham Richardson. He was there, quite simply, to put the hard word on the guests for their money after the delicious food, expensive wine and expansive speeches. He hoped that each of the men might be good for anywhere between $30 000 and $100 000... and this was in 1987, if it were constant dollars, it would be a lot more... ..comfortably lining Labor's war chest for the election. The cheques would be collected after the election - this way the donations could be written off to the party's administrative fund or its corporate entities. The confidentiality of the donors and the size of their contribution could be protected. When the Leader of the Opposition asks about fundraising at Kirribilli House, that is what he ought to be talking about -

not an entirely legitimate event that I held there last Friday week. Three days of questioning culminated in the Opposition Leader leading a censure motion against the Prime Minister. It is remarkable indeed that on a day like this the government will not even take a censure on something as serious as the misuse of the Australian national estate for party political fundraising purposes

by the Liberal Party. What we have on display for the nation and for the parliament is a government which has become arrogant in office, a government and a Prime Minister which have now lost touch with the Australian people, a government and a Prime Minister which believe that the taxpayers' assets, the public assets, the people's assets, are now the personal property of the Liberal Party of Australia. Their belief is that those instruments, those resources and those fundraising opportunities are now all political playthings available for their collective use in order to use to advance the partisan interests of their party.

This is a pattern of behaviour.

It is a pattern of behaviour that we have seen unfolding again in recent weeks in this parliament. The Prime Minister sat there over recent weeks as he took question after question from us on what was happening with the government rolling its hand down into the pocket of the taxpayer to pull out wads of cash in order to fund party political advertising and to fund it straight from the taxpayer. We spent day in, day out trying to extract the truth from this Prime Minister on why and to what extent his government was using taxpayers' dollars to prop up the political interests of the Liberal Party and the television ads which they had planned - which everyone knew they had planned, but which they did not have the courage or the honesty to admit at the dispatch box were then in process. This pattern of behaviour continues. It is not just reaching in and grabbing the taxpayers' dollars for party political ads. It now goes to core parts of our national estate. Kirribilli and the Lodge are the official residences of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia in Sydney and in Canberra. Since these matters opened up some five days ago

following the coverage in the Sunday newspapers, we have had the government ducking and weaving around one simple proposition - was this a fundraising event or was it not? It is remarkable that here we are on a sitting Thursday and the Prime Minister still cannot bring himself to admit this fundamental fact. If you go to the text of the document itself, it is remarkable what it says. Let me read to you from the document of 2005 - this was when they had fun down at the Lodge. The 2005 Liberal Party of Australia's federal council document which was sent out to business observers says, "Registration form - Business observers: Please note, registration forms will not be processed until payment is received." That is the first point. "Attendance - Registration fee: $7,500." And it goes to say - "The business observers registration fee includes all meals, including the council gala dinner, admittance to the business observers program and council material." It then says: "Numbers for some functions are limited. Please register and pay early to avoid disappointment." It also says, "To assist in administration and catering, please indicate your attendance at each of the following functions." So let us get the sequence right here.

There is a $7,500 registration fee to gain acceptance and admission to the business observers program. Then you are asked on the self-same form to tick the box as to which of the elements of this business observers program you are going to attend in response to the amount of money that you have paid. And what do we find on this list? On Friday, 24 June, you get morning tea with chiefs of staff. Then there is an economic luncheon with the Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello. Additional tickets were $150 for that. There is the health luncheon, with the Hon. Tony Abbott. It was $150 for that. It would be interesting to see who went to what and who got the best numbers. And then there is this amazing little box -

'Welcome reception'. It does not say where. It does not say whose welcome reception. But we now know it is the Prime Minister's welcome reception.

What we have been told by members of the business community is that when they are at their federal council meeting... Order! The motion is to suspend standing orders. The Leader of the Opposition will speak to the motion. We are speaking to the urgency of the suspension, and it goes to the whole question of the integrity of the use of public resources in this country for their proper purposes, including the whole question of the national estate. But when we come to the proposition that the business community, were then bussed from the Hyatt over to the Lodge and greeted at the door of the Lodge by the Prime Minister, it is transparently obvious what the function was. If it smells like a fundraiser, if it looks like a fundraiser and, given the canapes on offer, if it tastes like a fundraiser, in all probability, Prime Minister, it is a fundraiser. As part of matters surrounding the federal council meeting there was a drinks party, which I hosted at Kirribilli, to which delegates to the federal council, a few other members of the Liberal Party and business observers to the council, were invited. The invitations that were extended to the business observers in the first instance and the invitations on which decisions were made by those business observers to attend did not, I am advised, make any reference to attendance at Kirribilli House, but rather a reference to a Prime Minister's reception. I regarded it as proper, as did the Federal Director of the Liberal Party. Order. The member for Gorton is warned! The decision taken before the event was held was that, given it was an event taking place in conjunction

with the Liberal Party Federal Council it would be proper for the Liberal Party to pay the additional costs involved in hosting the event. And when I speak of additional costs, I mean the additional costs of food and drink and any additional security, I think I advised the House of a figure of some $5,100,

to which should be added, I am now told, some security costs of several hundred dollars.

I also inform the House that prior to the event being held, verbal advice was obtained from

the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by my chief of staff, that given all the circumstances and given the intention of the Liberal Party to pay the additional costs, it was an entirely appropriate use of the official residence. That was the advice that was obtained. Much has been made of the fact that these delegates were coming to the federal council meeting only because of the possibility, of which they were not formally advised before accepting the invitation to come, that they would be able to come to Kirribilli House. That might be a valid argument if the only opportunity of access to me or my ministers occurred at the Kirribilli House function. But I can tell the House that, unlike other party conferences, there was full access to me and to senior ministers at the meetings of the federal council and all the surrounding occasions,

so there is no question of this being an improper use. The Liberal Party believes that Kirribilli House and the Lodge are their own private country club. Let us have a listen to what the Prime Minister said. The first thing that he did was to speak about additional costs as if the security, the staff at the Lodge and the staff

at Kirribilli House are there at his beck and call to serve the Liberal Party if the Liberal Party is using it for fundraising. To cover up this abuse of democracy, over the past 24 hours we have seen a compromising of the independence Australian Electoral Commission.

I remind the Leader of the House of standing order 62. MEMBER: Sit, boy, sit! The response of the government has been to breach the Australian Electoral Act and to breach the ministerial guidelines. And what does the Prime Minister say? He says, "We paid the additional costs." The only way that the food at Kirribilli

could have cost $9.46 a head was if guests leaned over the fence at Kirribilli and fished it directly out of Sydney Harbour. The Prime Minister's use...

The manager of Opposition business will resume his seat. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Leader of the House will resume their seats or leave the chamber. The honourable the manager of Opposition business. Order. Order.

No wonder they do not want a debate on this. The manager of Opposition business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House. Mr Speaker, on a point of order. I did not think it was a problem to do what I have just done.

Certainly, members opposite do it all the time.

That is not a point of order. That is not a point of order. The leader of the House will resume his seat. The manager of Opposition business. The Prime Minister was reminded that he had not tabled any costs for security staff, so what did he do?

On the run, he told parliament,

"Oh, there were several hundred dollars spent on extra security for the Kirribilli House function." We also know, because it has come out today, about the 2005 function - that this is a regular abuse, a serial abuse

of the Prime Minister's two residences to raise money for the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister says that he has advice. He should table it before this parliament, because it is pretty clear that this was an abuse. You have only to look at the business observer's registration form, because what it has is a series of events. Many of them have additional tickets available where you can buy your way in, with the exception of three events, and those three events are the Senate afternoon tea, the morning tea with chiefs of staff and the Prime Minister's reception at Kirribilli House. Order! The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship will observe standing order 62. It is very clear, with due respect to the senators and with due respect to the chiefs of staff, that the big attraction for this event was the reception at Kirribilli,

where you got food - oysters, prawns, fine wine, posh soup in little shot glasses - for the bargain basement price of under $10 a head.

This program is not subtitled

In November, 1939, the war was two months old.

Blitzkrieg on Poland had given the world a new word and the generals a new idea of battle. At sea, the problems were still the same. In war, Germany could feed herself. England could not. If the ships bringing England's food could be sunk or immobilised, England would starve and the war would be won. For this the Germans had three powerful weapons - the magnetic mine, the U-boat and the surface raider. These pocket battleships were strong and swift. There had never been anything like them. They were the tigers of the sea. Ten days before war was declared, one raider left a German port with secret orders. She sailed by night off Norway's coast, passing unobserved through the Denmark Strait between Iceland and Greenland. She vanished into the southern Atlantic where a supply ship waited for her. Months passed and nobody suspected that a killer was lurking there until ship after ship failed to make its home port.

Poor little 'Africa Shell'. Fortune of war, Captain. Pirates, that's what you are.

My ship was well inside Portuguese territorial waters. Complain to our captain. What's the use of complaining? You've sunk my ship and stolen my papers. My position was clearly marked on the chart. Your chart is inaccurate. Here. Take a look at that. Isn't that the coast of Portuguese East Africa? We're still within the three mile limit. There's Cape Zabora.

There's the lighthouse on Quizzical Point. All I can see, Captain, are two of your lifeboats, carrying all your crew to safety. (Blows whistle)

WHISTLE BLOWS (Blows whistle) THUNDEROUS CLAP

So you ARE the pocket battleship 'Graf Spee'.

Achtung! (Speaks German)

Well, Captain Dove. Well, Captain Langsdorff. How do you do, Captain? My morning officer reported your protest about the seizure of your ship. You say you were in territorial waters. That makes it difficult for me. Not half so difficult as it makes it for me. I've lost my ship and everything else. I was well within the three mile limit. If I had my chart... Here it is. Please. Show me. I will. Look here. There. See that line? It couldn't be clearer. We're unlikely to agree, Captain. You want to be proven right, and me wrong. Whereas I... Shall we compromise? You write your protest and I'll give you a receipt. Fair? Fair enough, sir. Shall we drink? Scotch - genuine. From the steamship 'Clement'. So YOU sunk the 'Clement'? That's right. Also genuine? Yes, but not from the 'Clement', I think. No, from the 'Huntsman'. The 'Huntsman's captain was my pal. IS, Captain. What, is he on board? Uh...not exactly. Believe me, Captain, I don't like sending ships to the bottom. Nor do I like making war on civilians. Up till now, it's the civilians who have suffered in this war. The army are sitting in armour and concrete

broadcasting to each other. The airman are making reconnaissance flights and the sailors... Take me, for example. I command a fine new ship, one of the finest battleships afloat. We are fast. 25 knots? More. And immense fire power. Six 11-inch guns and eight or ten five-inch. Use your eyes. My orders are to sink merchant ships and avoid a battle. You never know your luck, Captain. One of these days you might run up against one of ours. You have only three ships that can catch me. 'Repulse', 'Renown' and 'Hood'. On paper. Your big battleships are not fast enough. We have cruisers faster than you. They can't match my guns. On paper. I have one other advantage, Captain. The vastness of the sea. It's very difficult to find me. I can appreciate that. How can your supply ship find you? She can't. I find her. Isn't that just as difficult? It's the simplest thing in the world. The details are secret, but the method is very old. The ocean is divided into squares. I know exactly in which square my supply ship is on a certain date. Very interesting. I know what you're thinking. But the charts are safe. And so are you, for the duration. I can hunt the seven seas from North Pole to South. I hope you won't go as far as that because I'm not dressed for it. Our tailor will make you something warm. So we are going south? Perhaps. Would you like to see all of my ship? I might as well. I've got an hour or two. You'll be shown to your quarters. Thank you, sir.

(Sailor gives orders in German)

How do you do? (Speak German) ORDERS GIVEN OVER P.A.

BELL RINGS Sorry, Captain. We've sighted another merchant. We must ask you to come to your quarters. Follow me, please. (Speak German) Very nice. Ja. Rich man's quarters. Very nice and spacious. There will be 29 officers here. 29? Yes. When we meet our supply ship, all officer prisoners will be transferred here. Oh. I'd better pick my corner first. (Chuckles) We are taking you home for Christmas. Oh, that's jolly. When? Sometime. Soon.

From the tailor. Captain Langsdorff says you put them on and come on deck. Here she is. Our supply ship. (Shout orders in German) GUNSHOT SHOUTING Good morning! Good morning, Captain. Kind of you to let me come on deck. I thought you might be interested. I am. For you, Captain. Go on - take it. Thanks. I will. Looks as if Father Christmas has arrived. He has. Fresh meat, green vegetables, fruit. And some fuel. Dove. Santa Claus.

'Altmark'. Not very well camouflaged. Now we do things much better.

For example, we rigged this up for neutrals. One day I am the 'Deutschland'. (Speaks German) The next I'm the 'Admiral Scheer'. Neutrals always report what they see, so I keep your navy interested. I am like a pretty girl. I change my frock, I change my hat - I am a different girl.

This is going to be my new funnel - canvas. There, a new turret. (Speaks German) Yes, Jane - a very useful publication. That is our new silhouette. An American heavy cruiser. So that's why you've got a number painted on your bows. Think you'll get away with it? Enough to avoid recognition. Five minutes at 28 knots makes all the difference between being in range and out of range. There are only two things to remember in a modern naval battle. Good intelligence from shore so you know what to expect and good spotting on your own ship so you know what you see. Talking of silhouettes, congratulations on your tailor. That's not bad. Thanks. I want you to look your best. I'm transferring to this ship all the 'Altmark's officer prisoners. Oh? May I ask why, sir? Yes. The 'Graf Spee' is being relieved by...another vessel.

We've finished our turn of duty. Three months, Captain. I'm going home for some leave. I must take my prisoners with me. You'll have company tonight. (Speak German)

I really ought to be in my own uniform to meet the boys. I say, they've had more time to pack than I had. Who are you shoving, anyway? Come on, lads. Quick! Grab one of the corners. Come on. Over here. 'Huntsman'. Who's from the 'Huntsman'? Ahoy! We're from the 'Trevanion'. Captain. All 'Tairoa' around this table. Good evening, Captain. Why, you're one of us. I thought you were a Jerry. No, I'm Dove - 'Africa Shell'. Glory be - a new face. When were you sunk? November 15th - Indian Ocean. Any others with you? No. I was the last sunk. They only took me. Hear that, boys? No kill for three weeks. How have they treated you? Quite alright. How's the captain? What's he like? Fine, fine. He's a gentleman. Not like Dahl on the 'Altmark'. He's a proper swine. A real... Men like cattle in the hold. Just four walls and a stinking bucket! Auf Wiedersehen. LAUGHTER This is going to be no pleasure cruise either.

Hallo. Well, that's a bit of luck. The chippy's left the screw holes unstuffed. Very thoughtful of him. You know, when I was all alone I fancied company. Now I'm not so sure. LAUGHTER FOGHORN BLOWS She's moving, boys. Yes, yes. She's underway. Well, who are you all? Let's have a muster. 'Huntsman'. 'Newton Beech'. 'Ashley'. 'Ashley'. 'Tairoa'. 'Trevanion'. All present. Correct? 'Africa Shell'. Who's next? We'll never get OUT OF HERE! Shut up! Yeah! Shut your great big mouth! We're rats in a TRAP! Some rat - ha ha! Don't start any trouble. Shut up, everybody! Here comes old Zunk. Who's been bumped this time? Gentlemen. The fight is finished. Fight? What fight? We zunk her. Sunk her? Zunk her! Nicht, nicht. 'Doric Star' - kaput! 'Doric Star'? She's a perishing meat box. This might mean a good feed. She only had a rotten little four-inch. The navy will catch you. I hope you picked up the crew! You shelled her long enough. Soon you have more friends here. Where will they go? Oh, plenty room here. (Speaks German) Well, welcome aboard, Captain. I'm Dove - 'Africa Shell'. Stubbs - 'Doric Star'. Yes, we know. Cottinger - 'Ashley'. Yes. Hello, Stubbs. John Robeson - hello! Remember me, Captain? Murphy - 'Tairoa'. Caught you with your pants down? No time to get my gear. Punishment for using my radio. Kept them on the run all afternoon. Did you get through? No doubt. Did they board you, Captain? No. We scuttled out. Another meatless day. (Laughs) Very brave, but very foolish. You're lucky you weren't "zunk"! Zunk? Auf Wiedersehen. LAUGHTER We reserve table tops for captains. Engine room staff - below. (Laughs)