Senator FAULKNER (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (2:30 PM) —My question is directed to Senator Hill, as Leader of the Government in the Senate. Minister, if the legal action in the Victorian Supreme Court warranted the Governor-General's standing aside this week, why was that action not warranted back in December when the Prime Minister was first informed of the allegations or at the commencement of the court action in March? How are the circumstances of the case in any way different this week to last December or to March this year? Why was the appropriate action then to suppress all public knowledge of the case, yet the right thing to do this week is for Dr Hollingworth to stand aside?

Senator HILL (Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Senator Faulkner has really asked me to put myself in the mind of Dr Hollingworth. I understand that, back in December, they were simply bare allegations contained in a solicitor's letter and that no legal proceedings had been started. The next step, I think, were proceedings to determine whether an action should be commenced. I think the suppression order is actually related to that and, therefore, I can see sound reasons why, in both of those circumstances, the Governor-General should not need to step aside. It may be that by last weekend—when, in effect, through action taken by the Australian Labor Party the suppression orders were lifted and there was debate on the potential civil case that could certainly deflect from Dr Hollingworth's consideration of the Aspinall matters, which he indicated he was considering—the circumstances were such that it was better that he stand aside and be able to give his full attention to the latter. It is hard to ask me that question, but I have given you some suggested answers.

Senator FAULKNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. With respect to the minister, I am not asking him to put himself in the mind of the Governor-General; I am asking him as the representative of the Prime Minister in this chamber. The Prime Minister was first informed of the allegations in December last year. Is it true, Minister, that the only difference between this week and last December is that the Australian public now know of the serious allegations against Dr Hollingworth? Is it true that only public knowledge of the case has forced the Prime Minister to seek the standing aside of the Governor-General? I ask you not to put yourself in the mind of the Governor-General but to answer this question as the representative of the Prime Minister in this chamber.

Senator HILL (Leader of the Government in the Senate) —If I am asked to put myself in the mind of the Prime Minister, I could easily say that I would refer the question to him, but I am attempting an answer and to explain to Senator Faulkner why the action that has been taken seems to be reasonable in the circumstances. I have explained why it does not seem to be reasonable to have expected him to stand aside in December and why it does not seem to be reasonable to have expected him to stand aside when an action, simply relating to whether there was a right of action out of time, was taken and suppressed; and, thirdly, I said that in all the circumstances where Dr Hollingworth is seeking to give full consideration to matters arising out of the Aspinall report, but is being somewhat derailed by the ALP's concentration on the proposed civil action, he may well have considered it better to stand aside.