Senator FAULKNER (6:25 PM) —On that basis, other Howard government ministers who have been censured in this chamber also ought to offer their resignations, shouldn't they, Senator Herron?

Mr Acting Deputy President, let me commence my contribution by saying this is a time-wasting stunt from Senator Vanstone. It is a real confidence builder for Senator Vanstone, who has had such a shocking time for two years as a former cabinet minister who quite properly was removed—sacked—from the federal cabinet by Mr Howard. We on this side of the chamber disagree with a lot of decisions that Mr Howard made, but I have to say that sacking you, Senator Vanstone, was one that he got absolutely right. Let me say, in response to this confidence builder for Senator Vanstone, that we on this side of this chamber have absolute confidence in and respect for Senator Bolkus.

Let me go to the substance of the motion before the chamber. First of all, Senator Bolkus never denied that he held a press conference on 5 January this year in relation to the Skase matter. Nor has he denied that he referred to the affidavit at that press conference. Nor is it denied that, prior to its disclosure by a person or persons unknown, Senator Vanstone, the affidavit was subject to a confidentiality order. Now, of course, the government claims that, at the time of Senator Bolkus's press conference, the document retained its status as a confidential document. It is worth looking at that because, whilst it is true that neither the court, or Mr Donnelly of course, authorised the release of the document, there is no explanation as to how the document came to be in the hands of the media and, therefore, how it came to be in the public domain.

There can be no doubt that once a document is publicly released it ceases to effectively retain its status as a confidential document. Given that the document had already been released—by people unknown to us but probably well known to Senator Vanstone—to a range of perhaps unknown journalists and was being used by them, Senator Bolkus was obviously entitled at a press conference to refer to the document. It is in that context that Senator Bolkus referred to the document.

Government senators interjecting—

Senator FAULKNER —He did so because he wanted to highlight—and we believe it was his duty as the shadow Attorney-General to highlight—that the disclosure of the proceedings against Mr Skase, as revealed in News Ltd papers on 5 January 1998, through the public release of the affidavit by a source or sources unknown, had already compromised the pursuit of Mr Skase's assets.

In saying that Senator Bolkus referred to the affidavit during his press conference the government has been deliberately deceptive as to way in which that occurred. The government has, conveniently, chosen not to tell the parliament and the Australian people that it was referred to for only one purpose. Let me remind the Senate what that purpose was. As written by Mr Donnelly:

If this matter comes to the attention of the respondents, and in particular the attention of Mr Skase before the interlocutory orders can be obtained in all jurisdictions, I have serious concerns that steps will be taken to prejudice the substantive proceedings.

In other words, Senator Bolkus was quite properly referring to only that portion of the affidavit which demonstrated the damage caused by the leak of the information. Of course, it was an absolutely appropriate matter for Senator Bolkus to refer to during his press conference.

Senator Alston —It is on the record.

Senator Vanstone —It is on and off the record.

Senator FAULKNER —You have tried to denigrate Senator Bolkus's motives. You have referred to those parts of the affidavit `off the record'. You have used those words—and we have all heard them—many, many times. Let me quote the words you have used:

I can't give this document out, but maybe if I just read it off the record. This is the proceedings in court.

That is the quote that you have used time and time again. But, as Senator Bolkus has readily explained to the many who have asked, the journalist who provided him with a copy of the affidavit specifically asked him not to release the substantive contents of that affidavit because he or she wanted to retain an exclusive. That is a perfectly normal request from a journalist. It was not only appropriate for Senator Bolkus but it was Senator Bolkus's duty to keep such an undertaking to a journalist.

The issue of the boxing of two pages of the affidavit in the parliamentary press gallery on 5 January has been raised time and time again. I asked Senator Bolkus about this. You probably have not asked him. He assures me that he was in Adelaide. His staff, by the way, were in Adelaide or Western Australia at that time. It is worth making that point to the Senate. You have consistently smeared Senator Bolkus with the allegation that it was he who made known to the media parts of the affidavit that were not and would not have been put into the public domain but for his actions. That is the smear: that it was his disclosure of those details which obstructed the chase for Mr Skase's assets. Senator Bolkus has consistently denied that he provided any information to News Ltd prior to the story that appeared in the papers on 5 January. Just go and ask Mr David Luff, the author of those stories, as the government has and he will readily confirm that fact.

All week you have tried to smear Senator Bolkus by implying that he was subject to some form of criminal investigation in relation to this matter and that he was not assisting the authorities. What did the Attorney-General say in question time in the House of Representatives on Wednesday of last week? This is what he said:

In the circumstances there seems to be no doubt that Senator Bolkus would be able to assist the Federal Police with their inquiries.

It goes on:

What should happen is this: the Leader of the Opposition should instruct Senator Bolkus to stand down and cooperate with the Federal Police.

If the Attorney-General, for a change, had been doing his job he would have known that Senator Bolkus had assisted the Federal Police with their inquiries on not one but on two occasions, the last being on 30 January this year. And he would have known that Senator Bolkus had fully cooperated with the Australian Federal Police. He would also have known that the Australian Federal Police were not investigating Senator Bolkus but that the inquiries of the Federal Police were continuing.

We have here an attempt to use the existence of an AFP investigation to smear Senator Bolkus's name when both Senator Vanstone and the Attorney-General knew that Senator Bolkus had been cleared. We on this side of the chamber say that that is very grubby, very low life politics from you and the coalition government.

Senator Vanstone —That is not true.

Senator FAULKNER —The truth is that the real damage in this case occurred before Senator Bolkus conducted his press conference. The News Ltd piece was written independently and without provision of any assistance by Senator Bolkus or any member of his staff. The affidavit, of course, was already in very wide circulation amongst journalists who had no hesitation in using it.

The government has claimed that Mr Donnelly has said that the release of the information contained in the affidavit may have been more damaging than the original News Ltd story. That might be true but Senator Bolkus is not and was not responsible for distributing any damaging parts of that affidavit.

Senator Vanstone —That is not true.

Senator FAULKNER —That is the truth of the matter. This all raises the question: where did the original leak in this case come from? In the case of the News Ltd stories, that particular article specifically mentions `government sources'. It specifically says that government sources provided at least some of the information.

I make this comment—and I say this categorically—the entire piece is written to the benefit of the Minister for Justice. That is the truth.

Senator Vanstone —That is rubbish and you know it!

Senator FAULKNER —You have never denied, Senator Vanstone, on the public record that this information was provided by your office. We await such a denial that any of this information came from any member of Senator Vanstone's staff.

What is the only conclusion that you can draw? What we have is a classic case of trying to shoot the messenger. That is what we have in this particular censure motion. It was clearly inappropriate that the initial leak—which provided the story on 5 January 1998—or the leak in the affidavit in the public domain occurred. We know that, and that is what Senator Bolkus has been saying. At the time Senator Bolkus conducted his press conference all of that information, as you know and as everyone knows, was already in the public domain. We on this side of the chamber say that Senator Bolkus has a responsibility to point out how the government has failed, yet again, to properly pursue Skase in a proficient manner.

Rather than pursue the original source of these leaks, Senator Vanstone, Mr Williams and the government have engaged in this absurd but grubby political exercise designed to smear Senator Bolkus. We on this side of the chamber ask why you are doing that, Senator Vanstone. Why are you doing it? Because what you are about is revenge for the fact that Senator Bolkus was doing the job that Mr Williams should have been doing in reminding Justice Callinan of information which ultimately led to his withdrawal from the Hindmarsh Island case. It was revenge for Senator Bolkus's pursuit of Mr Williams over Mr Williams's initial failure to continue the chase for Mr Skase's assets. It was revenge from you, Senator Vanstone, for Senator Bolkus's revelations that you and the Australian Federal Police had been so inept in the 60 Minutes arrest of Mr Dolly Dunn in Honduras.

Senator Bolkus has been a very effective shadow Attorney-General and we understand the bitterness and disappointment that you must feel, Senator Vanstone, when you compare his success as a shadow minister to your failure and sacking as a former cabinet minister in the Howard government. In the course of seeking to take out their revenge on Senator Bolkus, in our view Senator Vanstone and the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, have acted in an inappropriate and hypocritical manner by divulging information related to an ongoing police investigation in relation to the source of these leaks.

Senator Vanstone in the chamber regularly parades her mock indignation by insisting that it is inappropriate for her to comment on operational AFP matters—a principle that never seemed to worry her too much when she was in opposition.

Senator Robert Ray —And as shadow Attorney-General.

Senator FAULKNER —That is right, even as shadow Attorney-General and even when the relevant aspects of those operations had concluded. However, it seems that that rule applies only when it suits Senator Vanstone not to comment when she is trying to cover up yet another part of what could only be described as a cavalcade of ministerial incompetence from Senator Vanstone—which I was grateful for the opportunity to be able to outline in a motion on precedence recently.

Of course Senator Bolkus is innocent of the allegations that have been made against him. The Australian Federal Police have cleared Senator Bolkus of any wrongdoing. I believe that the guilty parties here are those opposite who have abused their positions of trust by falsely blaming Senator Bolkus on this matter, by seeking to cover up their own incompetence for allowing these leaks to occur in the first place, by deliberately misleading the parliament as to what Senator Bolkus did or did not discuss at his 5 January press conference, and by deliberately and maliciously misleading the Senate through their claims that Senator Bolkus was under AFP investigation and that he was not assisting with the AFP's inquiries.

This is a most tawdry exercise in blame shifting from Senator Vanstone, Mr Williams and the government. If she had a conscience no doubt she would be ashamed of what she has done in this regard. I have to say that, if anybody should be apologising to anybody, it is you for the absolutely improper, despicable and contemptible way you have smeared Senator Bolkus's name. It is you, Senator Vanstone, and it is the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, who should apologise to the Australian public for your total incompetence in relation to the handling of the chase for Skase.

I have to say that you might, Senator Vanstone, answer questions such as why you did not ask the Australian Federal Police to investigate the leak to Mr Luff—because we asked that question. We wonder why you did not ask that, Senator Vanstone. We think we probably know the answer. We think it is probably very close to home over there in the executive wing of Parliament House. But we also ask, Senator Vanstone, why you and Mr Williams failed to disclose that Senator Bolkus had been cleared of wrongdoing in this matter by the Australian Federal Police.

We say that Senator Bolkus is innocent. We say on this matter that the government has no case. This is a time wasting stunt from the government. It is unworthy of the government; it is unworthy of the Senate. I can assure you that the opposition will be treating this motion with the absolute contempt it deserves.