Mr McGAURAN (Minister for Science) (4:13 PM) —The Labor Party has sunk to a new low with this matter of public importance. The Labor Party is scraping the bottom of the barrel when it has to attack the Attorney-General—a man of great distinction as a lawyer outside this place and by his conduct of unimpeachable integrity in regard to the discharge of his duties in the office of Attorney-General—and more so when it tries to include the Prime Minister in some sort of giant conspiracy. Both the members for Barton and Banks have very slyly, but not very cunningly, sought to bring the Prime Minister into a conspiracy whereby the Prime Minister sanctioned and more or less organised Senator Heffernan's attack on Justice Kirby, which is utterly false. Not a single person knowing anything about the issue, let alone having heard Senator Heffernan's abject apology, would believe that to be the case. It does the Labor Party no credit whatsoever—at a time such as this when a great wrong has been done to a fine judge—to try to make politics out of it. The member for Banks gave it away in his second-last sentence, when he said, `If you think this matter has finished, you've got another think coming.'

He believes that this will be an issue that the Labor Party can exploit for its political purposes, even though that is not, it would seem, the express wish of Justice Kirby, who has responded with dignity and graciousness, who has put the matter to an end and who hopes—and rightly I believe—and assumes the lessons have been learnt by the parliament and by many in the community on a number of fronts. The Labor Party will pursue this issue because it has a political agenda not just of trying to wound government members on the front bench, but also to cover up its total inadequacy and the complete absence of any policies.

We have sat some 13 days since the parliament resumed following the last election—the unlosable election for the Labor Party—which means the Labor Party has had somewhere between 125 and 130 questions. How many of those 130 questions have been on the economy, on issues of daily importance and concern to our constituents? I venture to say none. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister wait daily for any question on any economic matter, on anything to do with the conduct of the economy and the principal responsibility that they hold, because it affects the daily life of every Australian. Of course there are none, and that is due almost entirely to the record economic growth and the startlingly low, in a sustained way, interest rates and inflation rates and the reform being undertaken, especially in industrial relations. They do not have the courage to ask questions, because they do not have any alternative policies in any event.

What are their policies? Six years in opposition, and it took frontbencher Lindsay Tanner, member for Melbourne, to confirm that issue in an interview with Meet the Press last Sunday when he was asked questions about cross-media ownership and foreign investment changes. He has some personal opinions, but qualifies them by saying:

It is just getting under way! After six years in opposition, things are just getting under way. He repeats that later on in the interview when he is asked about the growing desertion of traditional allies, supporters and members of the Labor Party to the Greens because they are disaffected with the performance of the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and the total absence of credible policies by the Labor Party in this House. He says:

We are just starting the process of a very serious policy review! Six years in opposition and five months since the last election, and they are just starting. He uses that phrase twice—`just starting'. The member for Melbourne is quite candid; he should be given full reign. He is the one who said the Labor Party is a mess, administratively, organisationally—and it is five minutes to midnight. In the same interview, he says this in response to a question about the disillusionment of so many Labor Party members and their decreasing membership:

Be a bit patient? After 6½ years, how patient do you have to be for anything resembling a policy if you are a paid-up member of the Labor Party? We've got a lot of things to deal with! Blame the level of the workload here.

The Attorney-General is a lawyer of repute, he is a minister of great achievement and he is a man of unquestioned, unimpeachable honour and integrity. I do not believe nearly enough members of this place, on both sides, know the track record of this Attorney-General. He was selected as a Western Australian Rhodes scholar in 1965 and he obtained a Bachelor of Law at Oxford University two years later. From 1971 to 1975 he worked in Manila for the Asian Development Bank, and he returned to Perth and joined the bar. He was made a Queen's Counsel in 1982 and he practised until he was elected to parliament in 1993. He was a commissioner of the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia—

Mr Melham —He's a good bloke!

Mr McGAURAN —The member for Banks says, `He's a good bloke.' He is more than a good bloke. He is a lawyer for whom you are not worthy to carry his books to a court case. You know that tradition that the junior carries the books for the—

Mr Melham —Like Costello did!

Mr McGAURAN —You are not qualified to carry the books. The Attorney-General was a commissioner of the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, and he chaired the commission for a year. He was an acting judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia on two occasions in 1990.

The Labor Party tries to preach to this Attorney-General—with all his achievements and successes in government that fill pages and pages with concrete benefits to ordinary Australians through reform of the legal system so it is more efficient, less time is consumed, costs are lowered and it is far more accessible. All those reforms prove him to be an outstanding Attorney-General. I sat opposite all of Labor's Attorneys-General after they returned to office in 1983—Gareth Evans, Lionel Bowen, Michael Duffy, Michael Lavarch—and there are a couple of good blokes amongst them, although not all of them, I hasten to add. But not one of them, not a single one of them, ever accomplished anything approaching what this Attorney-General has before they entered parliament, and certainly not after.

It is not just the qualifications of the Attorney-General that are important. He has made a very reasoned and convincing statement today—as he has done in the past—on the role of the Attorney-General in defence of the judiciary. It is a considered position that he has had since 1994. It is logical, it is compelling and it is perfectly equitable.

The member for Barton attacks the Attorney-General for not defending the judiciary. Where was he when Justice Ian Callinan of the High Court was viciously and repeatedly attacked by members of the Labor Party in 1998? What hypocrisy! Where were members of the Labor Party when Chief Justice Garfield Barwick had his reputation truncated through months of slurs and accusations of a personal kind by the then Labor Party Senator Peter Walsh and by many of his colleagues in both chambers? I ask the member for Barton: will he now distance himself and the contemporary Labor Party from the attacks on Garfield Barwick of the early 1980s? Will you repudiate the cruel, unrelenting campaign against Garfield Barwick?

Mr Danby —What do you have to say about Neil Brown?

Mr McGAURAN —I see; he will not. Will you now condemn your colleagues and apologise for your attacks on Ian Callinan, a High Court judge, two years ago? Of course not. Hypocrisy is your name as the member for Barton. The conspiracy theory just extends and extends. We heard in question time that the Secretary to the Department of Finance and Administration is supposed to have seen a document of Senator Heffernan's, which has been fully and rightly discredited, but he never saw it. It did not matter how many times the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said that to the Leader of the Opposition; he kept saying it again because he believes if you assert an untruth long enough, mud will stick. The member for Barton and the member for Banks have adopted the same tactic in this matter of public importance: just say it often enough, repeat it, and even if it has no basis in truth or in fact, say it often enough and you will damage the person that you are directing it to—in this case, the Attorney-General. Sadly for you, you do not have a case to make and you are picking the wrong person because he is a man of great integrity. This parliament and this government are honoured to have him amongst its ranks.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. L.R.S. Price)—Order! I hope the Minister for Science will now agree with me that the discussion is concluded.