Senator BOLKUS (4:04 PM) —I move:

In raising the question this afternoon, Senator Crowley has highlighted this government's sleaziest attempts at ripping off the public purse. She did so in a very well-focused question—a question which raises the real impropriety of this government, highlights this government's low standards and exposes the low standards of the former Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge.

At the outset, let us note that today, on the eve of the budget, Prime Minister Howard decided that this grant to this college would not go ahead. Isn't it interesting, isn't it curious, that he chose this particular time to do it? The man who came into power claiming to be honest, claiming to give the Australian public open government, has basically put to bed this rort in a climate of secrecy. It was born in secrecy. This Prime Minister, in true Nixonian style, tries to bury it from public scrutiny, hoping that it will go away. He has done so by trying to ditch it on the eve of the budget. His actions, once again, expose him as being tricky and deceitful—words used about him by his own party president.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Bolkus, I hope you are not reflecting upon somebody in another place by using unparliamentary language?

Senator BOLKUS —Not unfairly. I will withdraw the sequel for the moment. As I say, he is a Prime Minister who promised honesty in government, but time and time again—

Senator Knowles —Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order.

Senator BOLKUS —You do not like it, do you?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Bolkus!

Senator Knowles —Madam Deputy President, you quite rightly asked Senator Bolkus to withdraw the dreadful comments that he made about the Prime Minister. He chose only to withdraw part. I ask you to ask him to withdraw all of them.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Bolkus, did you withdraw unconditionally?

Senator BOLKUS —I withdrew unconditionally the word that I was requested to withdraw. Cutting to the quick of this issue: what we have here is a former minister making a $5 million deposit—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator—

Senator Carr —Which word are you arguing about?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There was one word that was unparliamentary which was `deceitful' and that has been withdrawn.

Senator Knowles —The other word that was used was `tricky'. I think that that, in the context of what you were saying, should also be withdrawn.

Senator BOLKUS —Do you want me to read `Meg and Mog Go to the Moon' or something in the parliament?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No.

Senator BOLKUS —I withdrew, Madam Deputy President. I go to the point: what we have exposed here is a former minister who made a $5 million deposit on his future job prospects. That is what it was all about. He made the assessment that he was not employable unless he could actually pay the organisation to which he was going, and he paid them to the extent of $5 million. He must have had a really low estimation of his job prospects. But the fact of the matter is that he paid over this $5 million in secrecy, before an election, in order to ensure that he was going to go into lush, plush offices. That is what this is all about—feathering his own nest.

This sort of incident exposes this government's priorities. It is a secretive and tricky government. This is a matter that was born in secrecy. It was not announced before the election. It was kept secret for three months. It involved other ministers such as the finance minister, the Prime Minister and, for a while, Senator Patterson. It was a secret until we exposed it in the estimates process. It exposes this government as a government always prepared to rip into the taxpayers' funds to save its own skin. Once again we have here expenditure before the last federal election: a $5 million grant, not needed, to a peak lobby group, a lobby group that did have some influence in the electoral process.

It also exposes the government getting its priorities wrong. It takes money from areas of need—people suffering asthma in the mid-north of my home state of South Australia had continuing need of these funds but they were told funds were not available—and from rural and regional health and it goes to areas where there is no need. There was no need for this extravagance on behalf of the college. When you look at what the college needed in terms of office space in Canberra, you will see it needed 200 square metres. This government grant was going to give them the capacity to build an office of 4,000 square metres. They needed one-twentieth of that, but they were given money to build an office of 4,000 square metres and four floors—and you can guess who was going to be sitting on the top floor as top cocky. Michael Wooldridge had organised it all for himself, probably in there with a huge wine cellar as well, with his favourite bottles of Grange and 707 and the like. He had organised for the college to get the top floor of this four-storey building.

Does it not really epitomise this government that even as the college has been exposed and Wooldridge has been exposed as trying to rip off taxpayers' money the Prime Minister still wants to give them something to bide them by. Any other party, any other person trying to rip off government funds, would be pursued through the legal system. In this case, the Prime Minister in his statement says, `We will reimburse costs unavoidably incurred by the college in developing the proposal.' They took their risk; they should pay the costs. They entered into a secret deal; they should cop the costs of that. It should not be the taxpayer that bails them out. But in the Prime Minister's statement, on the eve of the budget when the attention of the public is on other matters, he indicates that the college will be paid off. (Time expired)