Senator PANIZZA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to Attorney-General Lavarch's commitment to fund Ms Carmen Lawrence's costs of challenging the validity of the Western Australian royal commission into the Penny Easton tragedy. As the royal commission is inquiring into an incident prior—I repeat the word `prior'—to Dr Lawrence's becoming a member of federal parliament, let alone a minister, is there any precedent for funding on this basis? Given that Dr Lawrence said that she was prepared to take this matter as far as the High Court at the possible cost of hundreds of thousands of Australian taxpayer dollars, has any limit been placed on how much the Commonwealth is prepared to spend? If so, how much is it?

Senator BOLKUS —I think I have already given an answer to this question to Senator Vanstone. The point I was making then was that this inquiry is nothing but a political manoeuvre. That has been recognised not only by this side of parliament but also by the Deputy Premier of Western Australia. It is a political manoeuvre, and it is geared to target a Commonwealth minister. Because of that, the federal government has made a decision to assist with legal aid in relation to the inquiry. At the same time as that, it throws up a number of issues of constitutional importance.

Senator Hill —Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was: is there any—

Senator Carr —Don't you like the answer; have a lot of trouble with the answer?

Senator Hill —I think the Left ought to keep quiet for a few days—job-sharing and all of that. Is there any precedent for funding a federal minister when these events related to circumstances before she became a member of the federal parliament? That was the first question. The second question was: has the Commonwealth government capped the funding that it is making available to Minister Lawrence in this matter? They were the two simple specific questions that were asked. There has not been any attempt to answer them.

Senator BOLKUS —Mr President, on the point of order: I have had 45 seconds to get to the answer. Secondly, the question is based on the inquiry as to why we are providing funds, legal assistance, in this particular matter. I am addressing that. If you cannot cop the answer, Senator Hill, don't write the questions for your lackeys on the back bench. I am going to give you a full answer, and the full answer goes to why the federal government is involved; on what grounds, both the political as well as the constitutional; and why, in fact, there are precedents for federal ministers to get involved in matters when federal laws are not directly involved. There are those sorts of precedents involved. You cannot raise questions about the federal government's involvement in funding this particular course of action without expecting to get a full answer, and that is what I am giving. Give me more than 45 seconds to get to it, will you.

Senator Alston —Mr President, on the point of order: Senator Bolkus stands condemned out of his own mouth. This is not a question about why the federal government is involved. It is not a question about the political manoeuverings, as he expressed it, that led up to the establishment of the royal commission. It is a very simple question—it has two prongs to it. You ought to be able to clearly distinguish between what he is trying to do and what he ought to do. He is being asked how much, and he is being asked about precedents for funding when the matter did not arise in relation to federal duties. They are very specific and narrow matters. That is no licence at all to go off and talk about why they have gone down this track, and you ought to direct him to answer those questions.

The PRESIDENT —They are matters which the minister just said he was about to answer. He is 40 seconds into his answer, as he has just said.

Senator BOLKUS —Because the matter does raise issues of importance to the federal government structure, and because the matter is one that targets a Commonwealth minister, the government has decided to give assistance in relation to the inquiry—not only in terms of representation before it but also in relation to the inquiry. In terms of the amount, I will take that question to the Attorney-General to see whether anything has been contemplated in that respect, but my understanding is that when assistance is given in these sorts of actions it is for a purpose rather than an amount. The costs are, at the end of the day, taxed.

  Commonwealth attorneys-general from time to time have always got involved in matters that raise questions of constitutional importance. In fact, it was only in 1993 that the federal government got involved in the matter of Stephens and Theophanous, which dealt with whether the defamation laws of a state were subject to an implied constitutional right of political speech. They were matters arising from state law. There have been other matters before; there have been other matters since.

  What is involved here is very much about the issues of cabinet confidentiality and separation of powers. A whole process of government is, in a sense, being inspected by this royal commission. If you, Senator Panizza, are concerned about costs, let me remind you of one way that this matter could very easily be put to an end with the taxpayer being satisfied; that is, for you to talk to your colleagues in Western Australia—whom you are aiding and abetting in this political exercise—and remind them of what Hendy Cowan, the Deputy Premier of Western Australia, said on the Sunday program. He said that the National Party—

  Senator Panizza interjecting—

Senator BOLKUS —You were talking about costs; you'll get a bloody answer on costs.

The PRESIDENT —Order!

Senator Alston —Mr President, I take a point of order. It seems to me that the minister has sunk so low he's about to embark on tedious repetition. We have already had this quote once. The question has nothing at all to do with what Hendy Cowan said. Mr President, I thought you said that he was about to get to answering the question. He rabbited on about some other court case, which had nothing to do with the precedent for getting involved over someone's actions as a state member of parliament, and he has said nothing at all about the ultimate cost. We want to know if it is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is the issue. It has nothing to do with any of this other nonsense.

The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order.

Senator BOLKUS —On the point of order—

The PRESIDENT —I have just said there is no point of order.

Senator Hill —Mr President, on a point of order: I think that you ought to—

Senator Faulkner —Oh, do you now!

Senator Hill —Yes, I do, actually, but you do not know yet what I think. I think the language was inappropriate for this place.

Senator Bob Collins —Oh, rubbish!

Senator Hill —Well, he is not at a meeting of the Left.

The PRESIDENT —Order! The point of order was not about language.

Senator Hill —He is not at a meeting of the Left. I am inviting you, Mr President, to suggest to the minister that he use language appropriate to this place and—

Senator Faulkner —You're kidding, aren't you!

Senator Hill —You think that is appropriate language in here, do you? You think this is a meeting of the Left. It is not. It is a national parliament and he ought to act accordingly, and you ought to tell him to.

Senator Robert Ray —On the point of order, in some ways I agree with the substance of Senator Hill's point of order. I heard Senator Bolkus withdraw, and I am sure he will repeat that. It is just the double standards. With the language that has been coming from the other side today, for them to jump up and take these points of order, it is hypocrisy at its highest point.

Senator Vanstone —On the point of order, Mr President: it seems to have escaped some members of the other side—I only mention it just in case it has escaped your attention—that you were not in fact called a poonce. A proposition—

  Government senators interjecting—

Senator Vanstone —Would you like to hold on? Tap it down there, sweetheart!

The PRESIDENT —Order! Why don't you take it up with me later.

  Government senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Vanstone, on the point of order—if you think it is really necessary. Don't you think you could tell me outside?

Senator Vanstone —No, because I think it is relevant to this particular point of order. You were not in fact called a poonce. A proposition was put to you that, if you chose to follow a certain course of behaviour, you may so be judged but that the proper thing for you to do was to choose the other course of behaviour, in which case you clearly would not be judged a poonce. I am pleased to say that you chose the appropriate course of behaviour. I just remind the other side, since they are obviously not up on the Queen's English, that you were not in fact called a poonce, whereas in this case you have a minister of the Crown saying, `If you want a bloody question about this, you'll get that bloody answer.' Now, that is inappropriate language.

The PRESIDENT —Order! Thank you very much for very little, Senator Vanstone. On the question of the point of order, I was not asked to rule on language but I do think that language is inappropriate, just as I have thought that language used on this side many times is inappropriate, and I have said so occasionally. I do not always say so, otherwise question time would never get on. I understand that Senator Bolkus has already withdrawn in any case.

Senator BOLKUS —Thank you, Mr President. The question went to whether there is a precedent. The answer is: the Attorney-General regularly intervenes in cases which involve significant constitutional issues. That is the answer to your question. In respect to costs, I have already given you that answer but I will give you a supplementary answer in respect to costs, which is just as critical.

  We could save the taxpayer a lot of money if we took Hendy Cowan's advice, and that is: the National Party does not believe taxpayers should pay for what is essentially an inquiry to achieve a political outcome. That is a view the federal government agrees with on this matter, Senator Panizza. You can go back and tell the cowboys in the Western Australian government that they ought to disembark on this process and save the taxpayer a lot of money.

  All we are doing here is embarking on a political exercise—with some fairly lethal constitutional issues involved in it—at the taxpayers' expense, to satisfy the political imperatives of Mr Court in Western Australia. He has done it once before, you know, on the Mabo legislation and got wiped. He was clean bowled on that one—at the taxpayers' expense. Total disregard for taxpayers' money at the Western Australian end is something we should be concerned about and something we will continue to be concerned about, especially if it has constitutional implications.

Senator PANIZZA —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. However, before I ask the supplementary I wish to tell Senator Bolkus that I am no-one's lackey and I wrote the question myself.

The PRESIDENT —Order! You will just ask the supplementary.

Senator PANIZZA —Will this decision to fund Dr Lawrence's court case establish a precedent which will allow any federal MP—including Senator Bolkus, me or any backbencher—to have legal costs met for matters occurring prior to his or her election to the federal parliament; and if not, why not?

Senator BOLKUS —The concise answer here is that if Carmen Lawrence was not a member of the federal government there would be no way that this inquiry would be continued. Secondly, if there were no constitutional issues raised, matters like this would probably not have given Mr Court the footing on which to base this inquiry. I say to Senator Panizza once again: listen to the words of Hendy Cowan, the deputy premier of Western Australia, when he says that this is an exercise in politics and for that reason the inquiry should be damned before it starts. So it is damned, but the federal government will protect the interests of federal ministers in constitutional imperatives in this matter and that is why we are involved.