Mr MELHAM (4:03 PM) —I rise to support this matter of public importance: the failure of the Attorney-General to defend the High Court and one of its justices from the attacks made on them by the Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary. What we have heard is again a defence of the indefensible. The Attorney-General is alone in thinking that judges can fight for themselves, and this sorry saga shows it. The legal profession has lined up all this week and last week, when this matter first came to public attention, to disagree with the Attorney. We have had Gordon Samuels, the former Governor; Professor George Williams; Bret Walker SC, the President of the New South Wales Bar Association; Alistair Nicholson, the Chief Justice of the Family Court; and the Chief Federal Magistrate—the legal profession, not their mates or political parties— pleading for the Attorney-General, who is not just another politician but the first law officer of the nation, to do his job, which involves maintaining confidence in the High Court by defending its reputation and its members from attack.

The events of the last couple of days have shown that the Attorney-General, by his inaction, and the Prime Minister, by his continued use of code words, have damaged the institution of the High Court, have damaged the parliament and have sustained damage to the people of this nation. Are they my views? They are the views, I think, of any reasonable, fair-thinking person. But more importantly, the gracious press release by His Honour Justice Kirby yesterday says it all. In the first and last paragraphs, he pings this Attorney, this government and this whole tawdry episode for what it is when he says:

In the final paragraph he says:

This Attorney and this Prime Minister stand guilty of bringing our institutions into disrepute for base political purposes on the part of the Prime Minister and in relation to this Attorney because, quite frankly, he has been suborned by his Prime Minister. In only one instance in the last six years of this Attorney's time in office has he stood up and exposed the Prime Minister. He did it correctly, because the Prime Minister had misled this parliament in relation to the Senator Woods affair and in relation, you will remember, to when the Prime Minister first knew about the allegations in relation to Senator Woods. This Attorney quite rightly stood up and said, `Prime Minister, you've known about this since September last year,' and the Prime Minister was forced to come in here, because that is the role of the Attorney-General.

What has happened now? Does this Attorney-General say, `In no instance will I not defend the courts or justices of the High Court'? No. There is one rule for the mates and one rule for the others. That is what this episode shows. More than that: he cites our attacks on Justice Callinan. They were not made under the cover of darkness and under parliamentary privilege. We went outside and issued press releases based on a Federal Court judge's statements. What did we get from this Attorney-General straightaway? He understood his role back in 1998. The Attorney-General dismissed calls for an inquiry into allegations against Justice Callinan. His news release states:

Let me tell you: this was no ordinary member of parliament who made the attacks last week against Justice Kirby. It was the Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet, under the cover of darkness, breaching the standing orders and abusing his privilege. He should have been sacked on the spot. What did he do prima facie? His statement, which—I repeat—he made as Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet, breached the standing orders and abused privilege.

There are provisions under the Constitution to go after the judges of the High Court when there is proved misconduct. But those provisions are laid out and we need to be careful before we use them. What did we get? Coded words. What happened the next day? The tabling of letters, where the Prime Minister compounded the damage and introduced new material. What he should have done, if he wanted to table those letters, was edit that scurrilous material, which was without foundation. What came out of those letters? Our little mate, Senator Heffernan, conceded that these allegations had been investigated. He went into the parliament not to get a fresh investigation but because he had made up his mind as judge, jury and executioner to, in effect, take out Justice Kirby, because in his own warped mind he was convinced of the judge's guilt.

He had tainted evidence. It did not take long to prove that it was discredited material that he was using. I commend the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, who blew it away in no short time—and he does not have the resources of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and this Attorney-General. But still they dillydallied; still they said no and they brought in new elements to the debate to give it credibility. Why? Because Justice Kirby is not one of their mates; he is perceived to be one of our mates. That is what this was about and why this has been handled in this way. It is the principles that concern me. Heffernan should not have lasted until close of business on the day he made his first attack. And then what did we have? We had Heffernan on the Thursday admitting that he was sending the material not at his own initiative but because the police had asked him to.

Now it is a `frolic of his own'. If it was a frolic of his own, why did they stop us censuring him yesterday? Why? Shouldn't we as members of the parliament on both sides do that? If you want standards, look at Senator Marise Payne. She had the decency last week to walk out because she could not cop it. That was before this fraudulent document was exposed. You have done enormous damage by your conduct. Do not attack us. You are all running away from Senator Heffernan at the moment but your actions gave credibility to this. This is not the way to take out a High Court judge.

This Attorney-General is a good bloke. We know that. This is not about him personally. But he has a job to do as first law officer of the nation. When you have a Prime Minister who will do whatever it takes—who is more interested in looking after his mates than protecting the institutions for which his office is empowered as part of our separation of powers—this Attorney-General should have stepped in. This has been a disgraceful episode—an absolutely disgraceful episode. If they think, `Oh, Bill made a big mistake and he has apologised and let's move on,' they have got another think coming. This bloke has been a loose cannon for ages. Where were the investigations? I had to find out about it in the paper, as did every other member of parliament. Who put it in there? Do your job or get out of it and step aside for someone else. (Time expired)