Senator FERGUSON (3:36 PM) —I do not know why you hate successful people so much on your side of the chamber. As soon as anybody is successful, you find the best way you can to try to smear them in any way possible. When Senator Faulkner stands before this chamber and uses the option of his quietly spoken voice to talk, we know that his heart is not really in it. After a series of questions to Senator Parer, he then had to make the big decision about whether to take note of the answers or not, because no answers given by Senator Parer were likely to raise any issues other than those you have tried to raise by trawling around and conducting this smear campaign you have started today—a tactic you have used on practically every other person you have chosen to vilify, inside or outside the Senate chamber.

I think I heard Senator Faulkner say during his speech that he was accusing Senator Parer of using public office for personal gain. I think that was the phrase that he used—using `public office for personal gain'. Talking about using public office for personal gain, how do you measure the personal gain that anyone gets from holding a public office? Is it a monetary gain? Is it some position that they gain after they have held public office? I can think of a couple of examples. Former President Kerry Sibraa: was it personal gain after holding public office when he was given a job by the former government as an ambassador overseas? Neal Blewett, a former member: was that personal gain from holding a public office? Graham Maguire: just an ordinary backbench senator all his life who managed to score a few jobs on some boards when he finished—was that personal gain from holding public office? I would not want to go too far if I were you.

There are a great number and you can name as many as you like but, if you are going to talk about personal gain from holding public office, you had better be careful about where you start and where you stop. Can you remember your defence, only two or three years ago, of a former Prime Minister who had a very considerable involvement in a piggery? Would you have considered that to be personal gain from public office? Probably only a few million but that is neither here not there, just a drop in the ocean for these people. `Personal gain from public office'—former member Wayne Swan would not have had a job of personal gain from the public office that he held before; I am quite sure about that. So when you come in here and start talking about personal gain from public office and when you talk about a senator who has spent his life working in the mining industry—as Senator Parer did, and he is well respected and is someone who has been successful; he did not have to have his job propped up by any factional colleagues—

Senator George Campbell interjecting—

Senator FERGUSON —Senator Campbell, let me tell you that he was not responsible for the loss of a hundred thousand jobs either. Senator Parer was responsible for employing people. He actually created employment and, Senator Campbell, a former Prime Minister accused you of costing this country a hundred thousand jobs. That is something you will always remember, Senator Campbell, and we remember it well because the comment was made by someone from your side.

Let us get down to the real issue of why the so-called attack on Senator Parer was made today. As Senator Abetz highlighted, it is a fact that we have had a situation today where one of your colleagues has been censured by this parliament. He has been censured in the House of Representatives and he has been censured in the Senate, where the government does not have a majority. A person cannot be censured unless you get the support of other parties in this chamber, and the only ones who stuck by Senator Bolkus were the Labor Party senators.

Let me tell you that some of those did it very reluctantly. I would not want to name names but, although some of those were sitting on that side of the chamber, when the votes went up—and the vote was 44 to about 26 or 27—I could not help but notice a bit of a wry smile come over the faces of some of Senator Bolkus's so-called colleagues when he was censured by this parliament. So this effort today to try and attack Senator Parer for some alleged mistakes in his register of interests can only be described as a very poor effort to try and protect Senator Bolkus. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for the debate has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.