Senator ABETZ (10:40 PM) —That sounded more like a policy speech to me than anything else. It is interesting just to reflect that the party that tries to say that the other parties are old parties is in fact now 22 years old. So it has been around for a couple of decades. I think the term `old parties' is now being used because the Democrats cannot bring themselves to say `major parties'—like the major parties that have major support.

The purpose of my rising tonight was to invite Senator Carr to consider the way that Senator Gibbs conducted herself tonight in the adjournment debate. I have to say to you that Senator Gibbs's speech was very good. I think it did credit to her and to the Senate. That is in stark contradistinction to Senator Carr's contribution, which is a continuation of his unprincipled and unsustained attack on Greenwich University.

Over the months now, we have had to listen in this place to these unprincipled and unsustained attacks. Senator Tierney, to his great credit, has done a welter of research on this and has completely exposed Senator Carr's lack of intellectual integrity and indeed the bankruptness of his arguments in relation to the allegations he has been making against Greenwich University. Indeed, one of the things that Senator Carr has been accusing Greenwich University of in recent times is that they had people of no real academic repute. I think that has been absolutely and utterly laid to rest. A Privileges Committee—dominated, as I understand it, by the Labor Party and chaired by Labor senator Robert Ray—has agreed that certain statements, for want of a better term, of self-defence by people from Greenwich University ought to be incorporated into Hansard. These are statements, as I understand it, that—

Senator Carr —Expose them for what they are.

Senator ABETZ —I suggest that, after the adjournment debate, Senator Carr ought to take himself to Labor senator Ray's rooms and just ask him why it was that Senator Ray and the Labor Party members on the Privileges Committee considered themselves constrained to suggest in their report that the statements from seven people from Greenwich University be incorporated in Hansard to set the record straight in relation to the heinous allegations made by Senator Carr.

Senator Carr —That is just drivel, and you know it. It is their right of reply, that is all.

Senator ABETZ —It is their right of reply, Senator Carr, and I am very pleased that that is now on the record, because the Privileges Committee, as I understand the rules, only considers that a right of reply ought to be given in very special circumstances. It would not give it to just anybody.

Senator Carr —Nonsense! What a complete lot of nonsense.

Senator O'Chee —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I did not think it was possible for a senator to make two adjournment contributions in the one evening. Failing that, it is quite clearly disorderly for Senator Carr to continue carrying on in the way he is doing. I beg you, Mr Acting Deputy President, so that we can conduct the debate in some decorum, to ask him to come to order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett) —I ask Senator Carr to cease interjecting.

Senator ABETZ —I think those few people who would still be listening at this late hour and those who might read the Hansard would not be aware of the volume of Senator Carr's interjections. It has been one of those tactics that we have become used to with Senator Carr. When there is a deficit in his reasoning, he becomes a lot more voluminous to try to make a point. He becomes a lot more repetitious in the hope that that deficit of reasoning will somehow be overcome by volume and repetition. The senator ought to take the tip that it will not work. Senator Tierney, through very reasoned debate and considered contributions to this chamber, has now exposed Senator Carr's contribution as being intellectually lacking in rigour—and in fact some people would say `bankrupt'. Other words spring to mind which may well be unparliamentary, so I will not use them.

In relation to the allegation of mickey mouse courses being available at Greenwich University, it seems very strange for a leading figure of the socialist left to make such allegations. I remember that about 20 years ago when I was at university, even at my home university, the intellectually bankrupt of the Left would run courses on campus that some of us would describe as mickey mouse courses. Senator Tierney has assisted us in reading out a list of courses that are, or were, available at Sydney University. Confucian politics in a rocky modern world may well take the cake—or indeed comparative approaches to mysticism, or Senator Carr's favourite socialist law. I think there are only one or two regimes left in the world that would describe themselves as socialist and that would be Cuba and North Korea. That is the modernity, I suppose, that Senator Carr brings to intellectual rigour.

Senator Carr —You believe Malcolm Fraser was a socialist, don't you? Do you still hold that view about Malcolm Fraser?

Senator ABETZ —I do not know what you are alleging that I have ever said about Malcolm Fraser, other than that I think he was a great Prime Minister. I do happen to know what a former Labor premier said about Senator Carr. He did not say it only once; he said it many a time. Senator Carr take the tip: it was not too flattering. When the Labor Party was in government, it gave postgraduate grants of over $25,000 to two people—one to do a thesis on tourism in fascist Italy and another to do medieval witchcraft. That is the basis on which the Australian Labor Party, through Senator Carr, comes to this debate. I note that that gem that was contributed to this debate was provided to me by one Senator Bill O'Chee, whom we will sorely miss.

Senator Carr —It will be his last effort.

Senator ABETZ —It may well be his last effort, but let me simply say to the Senate and therefore to Senator Carr, because unfortunately he is part of the Senate, that Senator O'Chee's contributions during his period in the Senate will always outdo Senator Carr's contribution no matter how many decades Senator Carr remains in this place.

It is with a tinge of sadness that I again note Senator O'Chee's departure from this place as of 30 June. I suppose that is the great contradistinction between Senator O'Chee and Senator Carr, in as much as Senator O'Chee has been a man of principle. We on this side would argue that he was the victim of One Nation in his own state of Queensland. However, he took a very principled stance against One Nation, for which I happen to take my hat off to him. If Senator Carr was not so busy not thinking and had listened to the contribution by Senator Gibbs, he would feel, like so many other senators, that Senator O'Chee's departure from this place is a matter to be greatly regretted.

In this game of politics, from time to time very genuine individuals make allegations or assertions that, on further reflection or further analysis, cannot be sustained. Then the onus is on those senators to come into this place and correct the record. Unfortunately, what we have seen from the Labor Party time and again are unsubstantiated allegations. When they have been exposed as being completely without foundation, like the allegations against the Baillieu family when certain people supposedly involved in this intrigue had been dead for 30 and 50 years and were unable to have performed this activity—unless, of course, you believe in the Labor Party's view of medieval witchcraft—the Labor Party should have apologised, but they never did. The challenge to Senator Carr is to apologise. (Time expired)