Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to Senator Ellison, the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Minister, why has the government acted only now to try to stop the Australian Law Reform Commission's evidence on the Wik legislation going before the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Native Title, when for the last 21 years the Australian Law Reform Commission has been commenting on legislation and accepting invitations to appear before parliamentary committees, when it has both current and past references that relate to the subject matter covered by the Wik legislation, and when it has already prepared a submission for the government's own internal task force on Wik at the invitation of the government? Minister, is there any other explanation for the Attorney-General's cover-up than that this government is embarrassed by the commission's exposure of innumerable and fundamental problems involved with Mr Howard's personal Wik legislation?

Senator ELLISON —At the outset, let me say to Senator Bolkus that there has been no cover-up. There has been no attempt by the Attorney-General to suppress the ALRC from giving evidence. I will table a letter from the Attorney-General to Alan Rose, who is the President of the Australian Law Reform Commission. There is no threat in that letter. In fact, I would refer Senator Bolkus to the transcript of an interview with Alan Rose on 2CN. He denied that he had been threatened. Any question of there having been any suppression or attempted suppression by the Attorney-General is utterly false.

When one looks at the advice that the opposition commissioned from Harry Evans, you see that it starts off on the premise that the Attorney-General has suppressed evidence. What the opposition failed to tell the Clerk of the Senate was that the Attorney-General had not suppressed evidence and had not even tried to do so. So they misled the clerk.

What the Attorney-General was doing was pointing out to the ALRC its functions under the act. Under the act, it acts within references referred to it by the Attorney-General. In fact, in 1994 Daryl Melham, the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, recommended that that provision remain, that is, that the ALRC deal only with references referred to it by the Attorney-General.

Labor said that itself when it was in office previously. What we have here is an absolute beat-up of what the Attorney-General has done. They have tried to twist the communication by the Attorney-General to the ALRC. This letter very plainly sets out the concerns of the Attorney-General. There is no question of suppression. The information from the transcript where Alan Rose was interviewed reveals that he was not threatened. The attack by the opposition in relation to this is thoroughly spurious and on unsubstantiated grounds. I table the letter.

Senator BOLKUS —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, were the submissions of the Australian Law Reform Commission to the National Commission of Audit in May last year, to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee's inquiry into contracting out earlier this year and to the recent joint CPA inquiry into the Public Service Bill in accordance with the commission's strict terms of reference? If the Attorney is being consistent, as he claims, why did he fail to object to these? Minister, didn't he make the commission an offer they could not refuse? Didn't he, as Mr Rose said, give the commission the alternatives that they could hold the submission, or he would talk about guidelines or what role or function beyond former references the commission might have, or he would write to the commission and tell them to do nothing other than formal references? Minister, aren't you being hypocritical? Isn't the Attorney dissembling on this?

Senator ELLISON —I will take up those particulars that Senator Bolkus refers to with the Attorney-General. As to the offer that they could not refuse, I think I have already answered that. When you look at that letter, it is quite plain. There is no offer that you cannot refuse in that. It is a letter which is thoroughly innocuous and which has no implied threat in it at all.