Senator JACINTA COLLINS (2:19 PM) —My question is to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Family and Community Services and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Has the minister read the findings of the Aspinall report? Is she aware of paragraph 15.5 about the Elliot case where the report states that Dr Hollingsworth:

... referred Elliot to Dr Slaughter for assessment, and following discussions with Dr Slaughter, and with Bishops Wood and Noble—

Dr Hollingsworth—

Government senators interjecting—Hollingworth.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —The report says:

Dr Hollingworth decided to continue Elliot in the ministry. He did so after imposing certain undertakings and supervisory conditions, such as that he must avoid situations involving children and young people and be supervised by his wife. Dr Hollingworth believed this would minimise the risk of any recurrence of sexual misconduct.

Government senators interjecting—Yay!

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —I am glad you find this amusing—let the community see your response on this one. I ask the minister: is allowing a paedophile to continue in the ministry under the supervision of his wife an adequate response and is the minister aware of any other cases where paedophiles have been left to the supervision of their wives?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) —I thank the senator for her question. I thank her for ceasing the amusement on this side by managing to get the name of the Governor-General correct halfway through her question. I mention that not to be catty, Senator, but, through you, Mr President, the senator did in her answer infer something—and those people listening on radio might think that people on this side did think the issue was funny. In fact, what people on this side were amused at was that the senator was purporting to ask a question about the Governor-General without apparently knowing his name.

In any event, I have not read the full Aspinall report, but I am familiar with that issue. I do not know whether that is the exact paragraph to which the senator referred. But I want to say this: I do not think it is for me to make that judgment about the behaviour of not just one bishop but a number of bishops in the Anglican diocese in Brisbane some years ago. It is not even up to me to make an assessment of any conduct while a Governor-General is in office.

No, I do not know of other circumstances where someone who has admitted to being a paedophile has been allowed to continue in whatever activity they were in in the past under the supervision of their wife. I want to say two things in relation to that. Firstly, I have not made a study of the issue, so I would not expect to know and, secondly, I do not fully accept, Senator—without putting any bad faith to you—that they were the only conditions that applied. What I do say is this: people who take this issue—that is, the protection of children—seriously will not make the mistake of thinking, as some have apparently done, that if they can get one scalp then all will be well or that any contribution is made to the betterment of children and their protection by the pursuit of one particular man.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware—although she has already acknowledged her limited understanding of this field, despite her portfolio—that this inappropriate response and behaviour by Dr Hollingworth in the Elliot case continued and was in fact actively maintained from 1993 through to 1999, possibly only 18 months before his appointment as Governor-General?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) —Senator Collins is entitled to make whatever assessment she likes about my knowledge of these areas. I can help her with a couple of matters that she has not alluded to and about which she may be fully aware. Let me start with the basic constitutional arrangements. Child protection is a state issue. I might add that I will take a particular interest in the pursuit of child protection in Queensland. I answered a question from Senator Murray late last year—or last year some time—in relation to this matter where the Queensland minister admitted herself that there was not enough money and they were not doing a good enough job. The unions—in which you would be interested, Senator—were complaining on behalf of their workers because their workers were going to work stressed as the children they were looking after might not be there the next day. So if we want to—and I do want to, believe me—pursue the issue of children's protection, the first place to start will be the states and their administration of this. (Time expired)