Senator LUDWIG (3:28 PM) —The government is still trying to sack Barratt after some five weeks.

Senator Lightfoot —`Mr' Barratt—

Senator LUDWIG —Mr Barratt, if you prefer; but from the way that you have been treating him—

Senator Carr interjecting—

Senator Lightfoot interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order!

Senator LUDWIG —It is a matter that started when you put him on in February 1998 for five years. At the rate that you are going in trying to get rid of him, it will be another five years. If we look at what you are trying to do, you are trying dismiss him. There are procedures that you could follow. Senator Lightfoot has alluded to procedures that were followed, but the court apparently does not agree. The court found that Mr Barratt was entitled to procedural fairness. The government, on the other hand, argued—and they argued, I suspect, with all the legal finesse they were able to muster—that they could sack him at their pleasure.

Senator Lightfoot —No. That was never it.

Senator LUDWIG —We can take you to the briefing note. I am happy to provide that. It seems that the approach that this government wish to take in respect of dismissals is that they want to be able to dismiss people at their pleasure. A departmental head or a hard-working public servant might also fall under that. But we still find them today bungling that attempt. They have not even managed to do it. The courts have upheld fairness and justice. It does not, in our view, augur well for the effective administration of the Department of Defence. No doubt the minister is finding it difficult to find a replacement. With the record that he has got around his neck, you would expect that there would not be too many starters, unless they have got a bullet-proof vest on.

This silly fiasco, which has gone on for quite some time, needs to come to a conclusion. Mr Barratt in his previous job was head of the Business Council in Melbourne, and he was recruited to the Public Service at a much later date. Now he might be able to turn his mind to supporting Labor in ensuring fairness from the Industrial Relations Commission with respect to dismissals so that justice can prevail. Not only did you argue that you could dismiss him at your pleasure but also, when the court did not agree with you, you tried to say that the costs do not follow the event, that Mr Barratt is not entitled to costs. You tried to argue that he should mind his own costs and that you would look after yours. At a time when the defence department needs careful and considered decision making, needs certainty and needs good information in its hands, there is no-one in the top job. This continuing squabbling is not providing any certainty for Defence.

What is even more surprising is that Mr Barratt got a pay rise in March of the order of $40,000, as reported in the Sun-Herald of 1 August 1999. Things must have slid downhill pretty quickly—

Senator Watson —You are wrong.

Senator LUDWIG —You can go to the Sun-Herald of 1 August 1999 and read it for yourself. Mr Barratt had indicated in July his view that everything was going well. There must have been a very fine line between things going very well and things going very badly. What is appalling, in truth, when you stand back and look at this sorry mess, is that the important issues are not being concentrated on, important issues on which the minister has abrogated his responsibilities. No-one is at the helm of the ship and there is plenty of work that needs to be done, like replacing destroyers and fixing the F111s. (Time expired)