Mr TANNER (7:50 PM) —Public disclosure of controversial matters is an essential element of our system of government. Unwarranted secrecy is the enemy of democracy. If issues of great public significance can be covered up by the use of suppression orders in the courts, genuine scrutiny of the actions of our governments and leaders will be seriously inhibited. By colluding with the Governor-General to cover up the existence of legal proceedings involving allegations of rape, this is precisely what the Prime Minister has attempted to do. He knew that the existence of these proceedings would generate enormous controversy and further undermine his already flimsy defence of the Governor-General—so he tried to cover up their existence. The cover-up was so comprehensive that, contrary to normal practice, the media were not even informed of the existence of the suppression orders.

The Prime Minister's support for the suppression of the Hollingworth case stands in stark contrast to his initial defence of his own parliamentary secretary following Senator Heffernan's publication of false accusations against Justice Michael Kirby—which were not even the subject of court proceedings. He supports disclosure for his political opponents and secrecy for his political appointments. There is a fundamental question at the heart of this issue that Prime Minister John Howard must answer. If it is appropriate for the Governor-General to be stood aside when he is the subject of legal proceedings involving allegations of rape, why did he take this step only after the matter became public and not when he first became aware of it months ago? The clear implication in the Prime Minister's action is that it is all right for the Governor-General to remain in office while subject to rape allegations if they are kept secret, but not if they become publicly known.

The self-serving spin emanating from the Prime Minister's office on these matters is beneath contempt. His claim that I should have consulted his office before placing my questions on notice is laughable. Why should I volunteer to become an accomplice in his political cover-up? Perhaps most contemptible is the false implication that the Governor-General's pursuit of a suppression order was motivated by a desire to protect the identity of the alleged victim, Annie Jarmyn. When he applied for his suppression order, she had already been granted an order by the court suppressing her identity. His own application makes it very clear why he was seeking to have his identity suppressed. It alleges that public disclosure of his identity would `have significant and far reaching consequences for the Third Defendant in his position as Governor-General' and would `inevitably lead to substantial public comment and controversy'.

It is not uncommon in legal proceedings for one party's identity to be suppressed but another's name to be made public. The Governor-General's attempt to suppress his own identity had nothing to do with protecting the identity of the alleged victim. The Prime Minister must now explain his own role in the decision to seek suppression orders. Did the initiative come from his office? He must also explain whether prior to appointing Dr Hollingworth he undertook any checks into his background. Was he aware that, while Archbishop of Brisbane, Dr Hollingworth failed to take appropriate action against known paedophiles in the church?

There is a deep moral decay at the very heart of the Howard government. From the lies and cover-up of the `children overboard affair' to Peter Reith's $250,000 tax-free job to free plasma TVs from Telstra for the Prime Minister and Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts there is a clear pattern of fundamental moral failure. The Prime Minister's actions in attempting to suppress publication of legal proceedings involving allegations of rape against the Governor-General and refusing to dismiss him when he has been exposed by an Anglican Church inquiry as a protector of paedophiles demonstrate that the Prime Minister, who claims to adhere to the highest possible moral standards, is in fact completely morally bankrupt.