Senator BROWN (2:29 PM) —My question is also to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer him to Liberal Attorney-General Bill Snedden's suggestion in 1966 that the standard of Westminster responsibility should be `if the minister is free from personal fault, and could not by reasonable diligence have prevented the mistake, there is no compulsion to resign'. If the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was told by the Defence Strategic Command on 10 October that there was no indication the children were thrown overboard, is there not a responsibility for the Prime Minister using reasonable diligence to have discovered that information in his own department? The responsibility, does it not, lies with the Prime Minister to have uncovered that information rather than continue to mislead the Australian people? Should not the Prime Minister take responsibility for misleading the Australian people and resign?

Senator HILL (Leader of the Government in the Senate) —With respect to Senator Brown, that question is a nonsense. The Prime Minister cannot be expected to know what he was not told. In this instance he has said that he was not told, and there is no evidence to the contrary. How could it possibly be said that the Prime Minister should be assumed to know every piece of correspondence that enters the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? There is no way in which you could administer government on that basis.

Senator BROWN —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The question depends upon the phrase `reasonable diligence'. The question is: what is the evidence that the Prime Minister used reasonable diligence to uncover a fact already in his own department which showed—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! We will wait until we can hear.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —I am still waiting to hear Senator Brown's supplementary question. If senators would come to order, we could proceed.

The PRESIDENT —Senator George Campbell, I am addressing the chamber on the matter of behaviour and order, and it is very disorderly for you to start shouting while I am speaking. Senator Brown, please continue.

Senator BROWN —It is a very serious question. I again ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: cannot the Prime Minister have been expected to use the reasonable diligence which would have discovered the advice already in his department that there was no indication that children were thrown overboard? What steps did the Prime Minister take to make sure that such evidence, if it was in his department, was available? After all, he had been asked for this evidence by reporters in Ballarat and elsewhere. What evidence is there that the Prime Minister used reasonable diligence in such an important matter to ensure that he was not misleading the Australian nation?

Senator HILL (Minister for Defence) —As I have said several times today already, the Prime Minister was informed that there were children overboard. Other ministers were informed similarly. The statement was made public. The border control task force, or the illegal immigrant task force, whatever it is called, produced a written document to that effect. The Office of National Assessment documentation referred to children being overboard. There was a mass of material to give ministers confidence that what they were saying was correct. It is only afterwards, with the benefit of hindsight, that these other questions can be asked. What that amounts to is a case of reasonable diligence. I hope that puts the honourable senator's mind at rest.